Should Intelligent Design be taught in schools?

dmanc227 · Jan 19, 2006

In every other thread i've looked at containing Intelligent Design the debate has turned into the argument of whether or not Intelligent Design is correct or plausible. I'm more interested in seeing (fact-based) arguments on why the teaching of intellegent design would help or harm students.

So basically, "should the public high school science curriculum include the study of the Theory of Intelligent Design"?

to start it off:
The Theory of Intelligent Design is religion based and would therefore impose one's religions over students who might not share the same opinions.

Vandeervecken · Jan 19, 2006

dmanc227 said:
In every other thread i've looked at containing Intelligent Design the debate has turned into the argument of whether or not Intelligent Design is correct or plausible. I'm more interested in seeing (fact-based) arguments on why the teaching of intellegent design would help or harm students.

So basically, "should the public high school science curriculum include the study of the Theory of Intelligent Design"?

to start it off:
The Theory of Intelligent Design is religion based and would therefore impose one's religions over students who might not share the same opinions.

There is no such thing as, "The Theory of Intelligent Design." ID does not meet the criteria of a scientific theory. It is merely one of millions of hypotheses out there.

Teaching it would establish religion. It most certainly is nothing but religion.

CaliNORML · Jan 19, 2006

I think that presenting the observable evidence of human intelligence and asking the question why human beings are more intelligent than other species is a legitimate question and an important one.

It should stop at the question only, the reason humans have higher intelligence should be left open, not filled in with one side or the others speculation.

That humans have higher thoughts and concepts is obvious, by not telling students what certain groups believe the answer to be will possibly make young minds want to find out the answer. Avoiding the elephant in the room will not.

There is no definite answer as yet, what is the problem with addressing the facts we do have and leaving the question open ended for students to think over? Creationism, I.D., and "God" should not be offered as the answer, it is up to them to try to solve this puzzle as much as this generation, shouldn't they start thinking about it now? If not "God" why and what?

Maybe given the question, new ideas will be formed by these young minds to help find the answer to this age old question in a physical scientific fashion using modern technology. If students are allowed to look at this for themselves, I am sure that new researchers will come out of school trying to solve this dilema for themselves and for all of us in the process.

KMS

MrFungus420 · Jan 19, 2006

CaliNORML said:
I think that presenting the observable evidence of human intelligence and asking the question why human beings are more intelligent than other species is a legitimate question and an important one.

It should stop at the question only, the reason humans have higher intelligence should be left open, not filled in with one side or the others speculation.

A question having nothing to do with creationism/ID.

Why are apes more intelligent than dogs? Why are dogs more intelligent than birds? Why are birds more intelligent than fish? Etc.

The answer is that the more intelligent species has a more developed brain. It's simple.

CaliNORML · Jan 19, 2006

Yes, but why did only humans develop this brain and how it functions setting us apart from animals?

If left unexplored just the responce, "something did it," is not very settled answer to a viable question. "What did it," should be the question to spark a motive in students to encourage them to find out the answer.

KMS

steen · Jan 19, 2006

CaliNORML said:
I think that presenting the observable evidence of human intelligence and asking the question why human beings are more intelligent than other species is a legitimate question and an important one.

But not in this tread, which deals with whether or not ID should be taught in school.

So feel free to start up your own very important tread on that question.

GarzaUK · Jan 19, 2006

CaliNORML said:
Yes, but why did only humans develop this brain and how it functions setting us apart from animals?

KMS

Our ape ancestor was first one in the ape family to eat meat. The rest of the ape familt just stuck to vegitation.
The protein in the meat developed our brains, then when the first apes knew how to smash a bone open to get at the nutritious bone marror (the marrow quickly sped up our brain development also) we became even smarter.
That's why scientists advise fish for healthier brains, and that is why Kelzie is so vacant. lol j/k Kelzie you know I love you lol

jfuh · Jan 19, 2006

Intelligent design is a joke. It's worse off than creationism as an explanation of existance as it revolves around circular reasoning.
ID is nothing more than religious fanatics that insist on the insertion of religion into the school curiculum. Of all the curiculums they challenged science because science within itself is a contradiction.

ID study should remain in Sunday school, not in the science class room.

For those that think there is a "controversy" over evolution, no, there is none, there is only a controversy over the insertion of religion into public schooling.

jfuh · Jan 19, 2006

For those of you within the christian faith and insist on the truth of ID here is a statement issued by the Vatican today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/19/science/sciencespecial2/19evolution.html

Alex · Jan 19, 2006

I think intelligent design could be taught in schools but not as a science class. It should be taught as a humanities or philosophy class and should not be required. I really believe that if taught in schools, it would hurt Christianity more than help it. Students would see that there is no evidence to support ID and when biology class shows them a theory that does have tons of evidence, they will choose evolution. It is probably in the best interest of ID supporters to not push it.

HTColeman · Jan 19, 2006

Vandeervecken said:
There is no such thing as, "The Theory of Intelligent Design." ID does not meet the criteria of a scientific theory. It is merely one of millions of hypotheses out there.

Teaching it would establish religion. It most certainly is nothing but religion.

Well, there is much debate over whether evolution qualifies as a theory.
http://www.grisda.org/origins/04004.htm

It cannot be tested and it does not have "predictive qualities". Scientists cannot begin to say that under 'x' conditions 'y' will evolve into 'z' over 't' amount of years. Also it has circular reasoning;

"The concept of natural selection by survival of the fittest is the basic evolutionary mechanism. This concept does not qualify as a scientific principle, since fitness is equivalent to survival. Here we have a case of circular reasoning; no consistency or predictive value can be tested. According to this idea, organisms have survived through the evolutionary process because they are better fit, and the way one tells they are better fit is that they survive."

Engimo · Jan 19, 2006

HTColeman said:
Well, there is much debate over whether evolution qualifies as a theory.
http://www.grisda.org/origins/04004.htm

If "much debate" is equivalent to "pretty much no debate at all", you'd be right. The only debate about this is going on outside the scientific community, in the realm of those who are ignorant about Evolutionary Theory. Notice that you take that link from a site whose stated mission is to "integrate science and faith". They have a clear agenda, and they are in fact wrong in this article.

It cannot be tested and it does not have "predictive qualities". Scientists cannot begin to say that under 'x' conditions 'y' will evolve into 'z' over 't' amount of years. Also it has circular reasoning;

Untrue. Evolutionary Theory is predictive, but not in the manner that you are thinking. Not only that, predictive capabilities are not inherent to the definition of a theory.

Wikipedia said:
In various sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon, thus either originating from or supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, logical, testable, and has never been falsified.

The "testability" that is referred to in science is not necessarily the ability to do an experiment that shows the accuracy of Evolution. In this case, testability is simply the ability of producing evidence that corroborates the theory - the fossil record following Evolutionary paths, etc.

"The concept of natural selection by survival of the fittest is the basic evolutionary mechanism. This concept does not qualify as a scientific principle, since fitness is equivalent to survival. Here we have a case of circular reasoning; no consistency or predictive value can be tested. According to this idea, organisms have survived through the evolutionary process because they are better fit, and the way one tells they are better fit is that they survive."

Untrue. You can look at the conditions of the time and see why their adaptations made them better fit for survival. If there is a sudden flood in an area, those organisms that can breathe underwater or are fit to survive in a flooded environment will thrive. There is no circular reasoning, the animals survive because they were more fit, and they were more fit because of specific adaptations they had that correspond with the environmental conditions of the time.

HTColeman · Jan 19, 2006

Engimo said:
If "much debate" is equivalent to "pretty much no debate at all", you'd be right. The only debate about this is going on outside the scientific community, in the realm of those who are ignorant about Evolutionary Theory. Notice that you take that link from a site whose stated mission is to "integrate science and faith". They have a clear agenda, and they are in fact wrong in this article.

I take it that you are so involved in the scientific community that you are aware of the various debates within? Besides I simply said much debate, I didn't say where, and there is much debate.

Untrue. Evolutionary Theory is predictive, but not in the manner that you are thinking. Not only that, predictive capabilities are not inherent to the definition of a theory.

So, how is it predictive? Furthermore, according to the definition from Wikipedia you posted, it is inherent to the definition of a theory.

Wikipedia by Engimo said:
In various sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon, thus either originating from or supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, logical, testable, and has never been falsified.

The "testability" that is referred to in science is not necessarily the ability to do an experiment that shows the accuracy of Evolution. In this case, testability is simply the ability of producing evidence that corroborates the theory - the fossil record following Evolutionary paths, etc.

That is not a test, that is what they believe to be evidence, they have not tested to see if evolution exists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
"Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks."

The evidence is an attempt to prove the theory not an attempt to disprove, therefore not an acceptable test. If it could survive such a test, it would be a proper theory. But it can't survive a test b/c it can't be tested.

Untrue. You can look at the conditions of the time and see why their adaptations made them better fit for survival. If there is a sudden flood in an area, those organisms that can breathe underwater or are fit to survive in a flooded environment will thrive. There is no circular reasoning, the animals survive because they were more fit, and they were more fit because of specific adaptations they had that correspond with the environmental conditions of the time.

Exactly, explaining why you believe they were more fit does not refute that it is circular logic. The fact is you define that they are more fit based on the fact that they survive, and if they survive that means they are more fit.

Engimo · Jan 19, 2006

HTColeman said:
I take it that you are so involved in the scientific community that you are aware of the various debates within? Besides I simply said much debate, I didn't say where, and there is much debate.

Actually, I am. I'm a scientist - granted, not a biologst, but I keep myself apprised of the goings-on when it comes to Evolutionary theory.

So, how is it predictive? Furthermore, according to the definition from Wikipedia you posted, it is inherent to the definition of a theory.

Like I said, predictiveness of a scientific theory is not the sort of predictiveness that you think of usually when you hear the word. The predictive capability of a scientific theory doesn't necessarily have to apply to future events. For Evolution to be predictive, you have to be able to look at an environment under certain conditions and containing certain organisms with certain traits and be able to accurately say which ones are going to survive. Looking at the past, we can see what actually happened with different species and see if the history matches up with what Evolutionary Theory says will happen.

That is not a test, that is what they believe to be evidence, they have not tested to see if evolution exists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
"Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks."

The evidence is an attempt to prove the theory not an attempt to disprove, therefore not an acceptable test. If it could survive such a test, it would be a proper theory. But it can't survive a test b/c it can't be tested.

Yes, it can. The fossil record, mitochondrial DNA, and numerous other things provide evidence for Evolutionary Theory. That is the "testability" that is being referred to. There are a lot of scientific theories, especially in biology, that cannot be "tested" in the sense of going into a laboratory and performing an experiment, but we have evidence for them that supports it.

A "test" that would refute Evolutionary Theory would be finding a highly-evolved fossil in part of the fossil record that it should not be.

Exactly, explaining why you believe they were more fit does not refute that it is circular logic. The fact is you define that they are more fit based on the fact that they survive, and if they survive that means they are more fit.

No, the logic doesn't go like that.

You're saying that the pattern of Evolutionary Theory goes like this:

1. Organisms survive because they are more fit.
2. They are more fit because they survive.

This is not the case. It is like this:

1. Organisms reproduce because they are more fit.
2. They are more fit because they have certain traits that allow them to survive longer in an environment.

See the different? It follows common sense, as well. If an organism is dead, it obviously cannot reproduce, so it will not pass down its genetic information. So, traits that cause an organism to die will be selected out because they will not be able to reproduce, while traits that allow organisms to survive better will be passed down more because they have more time to reproduce.

HTColeman · Jan 19, 2006

Engimo said:
Actually, I am. I'm a scientist - granted, not a biologst, but I keep myself apprised of the goings-on when it comes to Evolutionary theory.

touché

Like I said, predictiveness of a scientific theory is not the sort of predictiveness that you think of usually when you hear the word. The predictive capability of a scientific theory doesn't necessarily have to apply to future events. For Evolution to be predictive, you have to be able to look at an environment under certain conditions and containing certain organisms with certain traits and be able to accurately say which ones are going to survive. Looking at the past, we can see what actually happened with different species and see if the history matches up with what Evolutionary Theory says will happen.

And can you provide evidence that puts certain conditions containing certain organisms and accurately saying which ones will survive?

Yes, it can. The fossil record, mitochondrial DNA, and numerous other things provide evidence for Evolutionary Theory. That is the "testability" that is being referred to. There are a lot of scientific theories, especially in biology, that cannot be "tested" in the sense of going into a laboratory and performing an experiment, but we have evidence for them that supports it.

A "test" that would refute Evolutionary Theory would be finding a highly-evolved fossil in part of the fossil record that it should not be.

Still, this is research, not a test. What kind of scientific theories are tested in this manner?

No, the logic doesn't go like that.

You're saying that the pattern of Evolutionary Theory goes like this:

1. Organisms survive because they are more fit.
2. They are more fit because they survive.

This is not the case. It is like this:

1. Organisms reproduce because they are more fit.
2. They are more fit because they have certain traits that allow them to survive longer in an environment.

And how do you decide that those traits are the reason they are more fit? Because they survived.

See the different? It follows common sense, as well. If an organism is dead, it obviously cannot reproduce, so it will not pass down its genetic information. So, traits that cause an organism to die will be selected out because they will not be able to reproduce, while traits that allow organisms to survive better will be passed down more because they have more time to reproduce.

However, you are assuming that the organism is dead because it wasn't 'fit'. Therefore, that assumes that surviving organisms are alive because they were the fittest. Correct? So if you define the fittest by those who survive, of course it can't be proven wrong.

Engimo · Jan 19, 2006

Still, this is research, not a test. What kind of scientific theories are tested in this manner?

Outside of the realm of Physics and other highly testable fields, many of them. Evolution deals primarily with historical things, but it can also talk about what is going to happen. For example, look at the flu virus. The only reason that we need new flu shots every year is because of Evolution.

And how do you decide that those traits are the reason they are more fit? Because they survived.

Sigh. No, the reason that the traits were beneficial is entirely contingent upon the environment and situation being discussed. Take my example of the flooded area that I mentioned before. If we know that an area flooded, we also know that those who cannot breathe underwater or live in flooded areas will not survive. That's all there is to natural selection. Go back and read my last post, there is no circular reasoning involved.

However, you are assuming that the organism is dead because it wasn't 'fit'. Therefore, that assumes that surviving organisms are alive because they were the fittest. Correct? So if you define the fittest by those who survive, of course it can't be proven wrong.

No, you're assuming the organism is dead because it died.

HTColeman · Jan 19, 2006

Engimo said:
Outside of the realm of Physics and other highly testable fields, many of them. Evolution deals primarily with historical things, but it can also talk about what is going to happen. For example, look at the flu virus. The only reason that we need new flu shots every year is because of Evolution.

The flu is only adapting to circumstances, it is still the flu, it has not evolved to something greater than the flu.

Sigh. No, the reason that the traits were beneficial is entirely contingent upon the environment and situation being discussed. Take my example of the flooded area that I mentioned before. If we know that an area flooded, we also know that those who cannot breathe underwater or live in flooded areas will not survive. That's all there is to natural selection. Go back and read my last post, there is no circular reasoning involved.

Okay, so lets say an area flooded long ago (and is still flooded). What proves that the traits of the creatures living in that area are the fittest?

No, you're assuming the organism is dead because it died.

Now if that isn't circular...you're assuming that it died because it wasn't fit, right? If not then why did it die?

steen · Jan 19, 2006

HTColeman said:
Well, there is much debate over whether evolution qualifies as a theory.

No more than there is a "debate" about whether the Earth is round. Oh, yes, the marginal, anti-science "just because I believe otherwise" crowd, be they flat-earthers or creationists/IDers are no more than that.

It cannot be tested and it does not have "predictive qualities".

Both claims are untrue.

Scientists cannot begin to say that under 'x' conditions 'y' will evolve into 'z' over 't' amount of years.

Well, take a look at this:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
Particularly look at examples number 4 and 9.

Your claim is false.

Also it has circular reasoning;

"The concept of natural selection by survival of the fittest is the basic evolutionary mechanism. This concept does not qualify as a scientific principle, since fitness is equivalent to survival.

False. What is the source for this? You put it in quotes, so you got it from somewhere, but it wasn't in the link you provided (a creationist, un-scientific site), so where is this plagiarized from?

Here we have a case of circular reasoning; no consistency or predictive value can be tested..

Sure it can. Your source has grave ignorance of the science that went into the formulation of the Scientific Theory of Evolution.

According to this idea, organisms have survived through the evolutionary process because they are better fit, and the way one tells they are better fit is that they survive."

They survived because their evolutionary changes conferred a competitive advantage in carrying offspring to adulthood.

steen · Jan 19, 2006

HTColeman said:
I take it that you are so involved in the scientific community that you are aware of the various debates within?

But none of that involves the validity of Evolution as a Scientific Theory like YOU claimed, so your claim remains a falsehood. You are still evidenced to bear FALSE WITNESS.

Besides I simply said much debate, I didn't say where, and there is much debate.

Notabout the validity of Evolution as a Scientific Theory, outside of the fringe ignoramuses.

So, how is it predictive? Furthermore, according to the definition from Wikipedia you posted, it is inherent to the definition of a theory.

See example in the link of the previous post.

That is not a test, that is what they believe to be evidence, they have not tested to see if evolution exists.

Your claim is false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
"Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks."

The evidence is an attempt to prove the theory not an attempt to disprove, therefore not an acceptable test.

Another false claim.

If it could survive such a test, it would be a proper theory. But it can't survive a test b/c it can't be tested.

A falsehood.

Exactly, explaining why you believe they were more fit does not refute that it is circular logic. The fact is you define that they are more fit based on the fact that they survive, and if they survive that means they are more fit.

False.

steen · Jan 19, 2006

HTColeman said:
And can you provide evidence that puts certain conditions containing certain organisms and accurately saying which ones will survive?

Yes, see my previous link.

Still, this is research, not a test. What kind of scientific theories are tested in this manner?

All Scientific Theopries. Scientists look aty the data and determines that they then should see outcome X under certain conditions, and then research whether outcome X indeed occurs as predicted.

And how do you decide that those traits are the reason they are more fit? Because they survived.

Nope.

However, you are assuming that the organism is dead because it wasn't 'fit'. Therefore, that assumes that surviving organisms are alive because they were the fittest. Correct?

Nope.

BTW, You are discussing natural selection, not evolution itself. Evolution is about changes in a population, not about individuals.

So if you define the fittest by those who survive, of course it can't be proven wrong.

But then, that is not the definition either.

HTColeman · Jan 19, 2006

steen said:
No more than there is a "debate" about whether the Earth is round. Oh, yes, the marginal, anti-science "just because I believe otherwise" crowd, be they flat-earthers or creationists/IDers are no more than that.

So I guess you feel more secure in your belief by bashing those who believe otherwise.

Both claims are untrue.

Well, take a look at this:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
Particularly look at examples number 4 and 9.

Your claim is false.

The site won't work, could post examples 4 and 9?

False. What is the source for this? You put it in quotes, so you got it from somewhere, but it wasn't in the link you provided (a creationist, un-scientific site), so where is this plagiarized from?

yeah, it was, so you obviously didn't look very well, and I guess by accusing me of plagiarizing, your proving your point?

Sure it can. Your source has grave ignorance of the science that went into the formulation of the Scientific Theory of Evolution.
They survived because their evolutionary changes conferred a competitive advantage in carrying offspring to adulthood.

With hindsight, how do you determine that their traits gave them competitive advantage?

steen · Jan 19, 2006

HTColeman said:
The flu is only adapting to circumstances, it is still the flu, it has not evolved to something greater than the flu.

But not the SAME flu (of course, viruses are not the best example of evolution, but lets skip that for the moment). Speciation is not needed for evolution to occur. I am not sure where you got the idea that evolution is all about new species, but perhaps that is the source for your apparent ignorance of the science?

steen · Jan 19, 2006

HTColeman said:
So I guess you feel more secure in your belief by bashing those who believe otherwise.

I don't base things on beliefs, but rather of factual evidence. And the evidence is for evolution, just like the evidence is for the earth as a globe. And the claims against either are equally ignorant and cooky-marginal.

The site won't work, could post examples 4 and 9?

4.) Adaptation to a Low Phosphate Chemostat Environment by a Clonal Line of Yeast

P.E. Hansche and J.C. Francis set up chemosats to allow evolution of a single clonal line of beer yeast in a phosphate limited (due to high pH) environment. (A chemostat is a device that allows the propagation of microorganisms in an extremely constant environment.) The yeast clones grew slowly for about the first 180 generations when there was an abrupt increase in population density. This was later shown to be due to better assimilation of the phosphate, presumably due to an improvement in the permease molecule. (Permease is an enzyme that controls what is allowed to come into the cell through the yeast's cell membrane.) After about 400 generations, a second improvement in cell growth rates occurred because of a mutation to the yeast's phosphatase (an enzyme that improves the cells ability to use phosphate). The phosphatase became more active overall, and its optimal pH (the pH where it is most active) was raised. Finally, a third mutant appeared after 800 generations that caused the yeast cells to clump. This raised the population density in the chemostat because individual cells were no longer being washed out of chemostat (which is one of the methods that the chemostat uses to maintain very uniform conditions) as quickly as they had prior to the mutation. (This is just speculation on my part, but I wonder if it wasn't under some similar conditions that multi-cellularity became favored over unicellularity - perhaps on a sea bed or river bottom.)
This experiment was repeated, and the same mutations occurred, but in different orders. Also, in one replication, the processing of phosphate was improved by a duplication of the gene that produces phosphatase. This is experimental evidence of an extremely important mechanism in evolutionary history! It is also a particularly elegant experiment because not only was all of this adaptation shown to occur in clonal lines (descended from a single individual), but the authors also determined the exact mutations that caused the improved adaptations by sequencing the genes and proteins involved.
Francis, J.E., & Hansche, P.E. (1972) Directed evolution of metabolic pathways in microbial populations. I. Modification of the acid phosphatase pH optimum in Saccharaomyces cervisiae. Genetics, 70: 59-73.
Francis, J.E., & Hansche, P.E. (1973) Directed evolution of metabolic pathways in microbial populations. II. A repeatable adaptation in Saccharaomyces cervisiae. Genetics, 74:259-265. Hansche, P.E. (1975) Gene duplication as a mechanism of genetic adaptation in Saccharaomyces cervisiae. Genetics, 79: 661-674.

9.) Changes in the substrate specificities of an enzyme during directed evolution of new functions.
Hall BG
Biochemistry 1981 Jul 7 20:14 4042-9

Abstract
Wild-type ebg enzyme, the second beta-galactosidase of Escherichia coli K12, does not permit growth on lactose. As part of a study of the evolution of new enzymatic functions, I have selected, from a lacZ deletion strain, a variety of spontaneous mutants that grow on lactose and other beta-galactoside sugars. Single point mutations in the structural gene ebgA alter the enzyme so that it hydrolyzes lactose or lactulose effectively; two mutations in ebgA permit galactosylarabinose hydrolysis, while three mutations are required for lactobionic acid hydrolysis. Wild-type ebg enzyme and 16 functional mutant ebg enzymes were purified and analyzed kinetically to determine how the substrate specificities had changed during the directed evolution of these new functions. The specificities for the biologically selected substrates generally increased by at least an order of magnitude via increased Vmax and decreased Km for the substrate. These changes were very specific for the selected substrate, often being accompanied by decreased specificities for other related substrates. The single, double, or triple substitutions in the enzymes did not detectably alter the thermal stability of ebg enzyme.

Yeah, it was, so you obviously didn't look very well, and I guess by accusing me of plagiarizing, your proving your point?

Click to expand...

I searched on terms in the text and they didn't show up on the page you linked to. SO do you mind telling me where the text in quotes came from?

With hindsight, how do you determine that their traits gave them competitive advantage?

Click to expand...

By allowing them to be more successful at bringing offspring to adulthood.

HTColeman · Jan 19, 2006

steen said:
I don't base things on beliefs, but rather of factual evidence. And the evidence is for evolution, just like the evidence is for the earth as a globe. And the claims against either are equally ignorant and cooky-marginal.

The site won't work, could post examples 4 and 9?

4.) Adaptation to a Low Phosphate Chemostat Environment by a Clonal Line of Yeast

P.E. Hansche and J.C. Francis set up chemosats to allow evolution of a single clonal line of beer yeast in a phosphate limited (due to high pH) environment. (A chemostat is a device that allows the propagation of microorganisms in an extremely constant environment.) The yeast clones grew slowly for about the first 180 generations when there was an abrupt increase in population density. This was later shown to be due to better assimilation of the phosphate, presumably due to an improvement in the permease molecule. (Permease is an enzyme that controls what is allowed to come into the cell through the yeast's cell membrane.) After about 400 generations, a second improvement in cell growth rates occurred because of a mutation to the yeast's phosphatase (an enzyme that improves the cells ability to use phosphate). The phosphatase became more active overall, and its optimal pH (the pH where it is most active) was raised. Finally, a third mutant appeared after 800 generations that caused the yeast cells to clump. This raised the population density in the chemostat because individual cells were no longer being washed out of chemostat (which is one of the methods that the chemostat uses to maintain very uniform conditions) as quickly as they had prior to the mutation. (This is just speculation on my part, but I wonder if it wasn't under some similar conditions that multi-cellularity became favored over unicellularity - perhaps on a sea bed or river bottom.)
This experiment was repeated, and the same mutations occurred, but in different orders. Also, in one replication, the processing of phosphate was improved by a duplication of the gene that produces phosphatase. This is experimental evidence of an extremely important mechanism in evolutionary history! It is also a particularly elegant experiment because not only was all of this adaptation shown to occur in clonal lines (descended from a single individual), but the authors also determined the exact mutations that caused the improved adaptations by sequencing the genes and proteins involved.
Francis, J.E., & Hansche, P.E. (1972) Directed evolution of metabolic pathways in microbial populations. I. Modification of the acid phosphatase pH optimum in Saccharaomyces cervisiae. Genetics, 70: 59-73.
Francis, J.E., & Hansche, P.E. (1973) Directed evolution of metabolic pathways in microbial populations. II. A repeatable adaptation in Saccharaomyces cervisiae. Genetics, 74:259-265. Hansche, P.E. (1975) Gene duplication as a mechanism of genetic adaptation in Saccharaomyces cervisiae. Genetics, 79: 661-674.

9.) Changes in the substrate specificities of an enzyme during directed evolution of new functions.
Hall BG
Biochemistry 1981 Jul 7 20:14 4042-9

Abstract
Wild-type ebg enzyme, the second beta-galactosidase of Escherichia coli K12, does not permit growth on lactose. As part of a study of the evolution of new enzymatic functions, I have selected, from a lacZ deletion strain, a variety of spontaneous mutants that grow on lactose and other beta-galactoside sugars. Single point mutations in the structural gene ebgA alter the enzyme so that it hydrolyzes lactose or lactulose effectively; two mutations in ebgA permit galactosylarabinose hydrolysis, while three mutations are required for lactobionic acid hydrolysis. Wild-type ebg enzyme and 16 functional mutant ebg enzymes were purified and analyzed kinetically to determine how the substrate specificities had changed during the directed evolution of these new functions. The specificities for the biologically selected substrates generally increased by at least an order of magnitude via increased Vmax and decreased Km for the substrate. These changes were very specific for the selected substrate, often being accompanied by decreased specificities for other related substrates. The single, double, or triple substitutions in the enzymes did not detectably alter the thermal stability of ebg enzyme.
I searched on terms in the text and they didn't show up on the page you linked to. SO do you mind telling me where the text in quotes came from?

Click to expand...

So you are trying to tell me, that you base the origin of all life on earth on some test on yeast (which the experiment is called an adaptation, not evolution) and enzymes? I looked at the website (it was my browser that had the problem) and most of the experiments described adaptations, not to mention the site is not a scientific site, just someones collection.

By allowing them to be more successful at bringing offspring to adulthood

Click to expand...

So basically you prove they had competitive advantage by the fact their line survived?

HTColeman · Jan 19, 2006

steen said:
I don't base things on beliefs, but rather of factual evidence. And the evidence is for evolution, just like the evidence is for the earth as a globe. And the claims against either are equally ignorant and cooky-marginal.

The site won't work, could post examples 4 and 9?

4.) Adaptation to a Low Phosphate Chemostat Environment by a Clonal Line of Yeast

P.E. Hansche and J.C. Francis set up chemosats to allow evolution of a single clonal line of beer yeast in a phosphate limited (due to high pH) environment. (A chemostat is a device that allows the propagation of microorganisms in an extremely constant environment.) The yeast clones grew slowly for about the first 180 generations when there was an abrupt increase in population density. This was later shown to be due to better assimilation of the phosphate, presumably due to an improvement in the permease molecule. (Permease is an enzyme that controls what is allowed to come into the cell through the yeast's cell membrane.) After about 400 generations, a second improvement in cell growth rates occurred because of a mutation to the yeast's phosphatase (an enzyme that improves the cells ability to use phosphate). The phosphatase became more active overall, and its optimal pH (the pH where it is most active) was raised. Finally, a third mutant appeared after 800 generations that caused the yeast cells to clump. This raised the population density in the chemostat because individual cells were no longer being washed out of chemostat (which is one of the methods that the chemostat uses to maintain very uniform conditions) as quickly as they had prior to the mutation. (This is just speculation on my part, but I wonder if it wasn't under some similar conditions that multi-cellularity became favored over unicellularity - perhaps on a sea bed or river bottom.)
This experiment was repeated, and the same mutations occurred, but in different orders. Also, in one replication, the processing of phosphate was improved by a duplication of the gene that produces phosphatase. This is experimental evidence of an extremely important mechanism in evolutionary history! It is also a particularly elegant experiment because not only was all of this adaptation shown to occur in clonal lines (descended from a single individual), but the authors also determined the exact mutations that caused the improved adaptations by sequencing the genes and proteins involved.
Francis, J.E., & Hansche, P.E. (1972) Directed evolution of metabolic pathways in microbial populations. I. Modification of the acid phosphatase pH optimum in Saccharaomyces cervisiae. Genetics, 70: 59-73.
Francis, J.E., & Hansche, P.E. (1973) Directed evolution of metabolic pathways in microbial populations. II. A repeatable adaptation in Saccharaomyces cervisiae. Genetics, 74:259-265. Hansche, P.E. (1975) Gene duplication as a mechanism of genetic adaptation in Saccharaomyces cervisiae. Genetics, 79: 661-674.

9.) Changes in the substrate specificities of an enzyme during directed evolution of new functions.
Hall BG
Biochemistry 1981 Jul 7 20:14 4042-9

Abstract
Wild-type ebg enzyme, the second beta-galactosidase of Escherichia coli K12, does not permit growth on lactose. As part of a study of the evolution of new enzymatic functions, I have selected, from a lacZ deletion strain, a variety of spontaneous mutants that grow on lactose and other beta-galactoside sugars. Single point mutations in the structural gene ebgA alter the enzyme so that it hydrolyzes lactose or lactulose effectively; two mutations in ebgA permit galactosylarabinose hydrolysis, while three mutations are required for lactobionic acid hydrolysis. Wild-type ebg enzyme and 16 functional mutant ebg enzymes were purified and analyzed kinetically to determine how the substrate specificities had changed during the directed evolution of these new functions. The specificities for the biologically selected substrates generally increased by at least an order of magnitude via increased Vmax and decreased Km for the substrate. These changes were very specific for the selected substrate, often being accompanied by decreased specificities for other related substrates. The single, double, or triple substitutions in the enzymes did not detectably alter the thermal stability of ebg enzyme.
I searched on terms in the text and they didn't show up on the page you linked to. SO do you mind telling me where the text in quotes came from?

Click to expand...

So you are trying to tell me, that you base the origin of all life on earth on some test on yeast (which the experiment is called an adaptation, not evolution) and enzymes? I looked at the website (it was my browser that had the problem) and most of the experiments described adaptations, not to mention the site is not a scientific site, just someones collection.

By allowing them to be more successful at bringing offspring to adulthood

Click to expand...

So basically you prove they had competitive advantage by the fact their line survived?

Oh yeah, FYI, I won't respond to 'False', 'Not True', etc. Those aren't arguments, just a waste of space.

Should Intelligent Design be taught in schools?

dmanc227

Vandeervecken

Well-known member

CaliNORML

Active member

MrFungus420

Legend in my own mind!

CaliNORML

Active member

steen

Lie Detector

GarzaUK

British, Irish and everything in-between.

jfuh

jfuh

Alex

HTColeman

Engimo

HTColeman

Engimo

HTColeman

Engimo

HTColeman

steen

Lie Detector

steen

Lie Detector

steen

Lie Detector

HTColeman

steen

Lie Detector

steen

Lie Detector

HTColeman

HTColeman

Should Intelligent Design be taught in schools?

dmanc227

Well-known member

Active member

Legend in my own mind!

Active member

Lie Detector

British, Irish and everything in-between.

HTColeman

HTColeman

HTColeman

HTColeman

Lie Detector

Lie Detector

Lie Detector

HTColeman

Lie Detector

Lie Detector

HTColeman

HTColeman

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency