Who here believes in intelligent design and believes that it should be taught to kids

[AJax]

Originally Posted by niloroth

But thats not how ID works. Someone like Behe claims, for example from his book edge of evolution, that HIV has not evolved at all, that is has not changed at all, and that it still has the same number of genes that still work in the same ways.

Did you read the book? I'm (ironically) reading the book right now, and happen to be on that very chapter.


The following is taken from page 138:

"Because of the difference in mutation rates HIV has actually experienced about ten thousand times as many mutations as would a comparable number of malarial cells. The very many copies of HIV in the world would be expected to contain almost every imaginable kind of mutation. As one study put it, "Each and every possible single point mutation occurs between 10^4 and 10^5 times per day in an HIV infected individual"

I think it's perfectly clear from this that Behe NEVER makes the claim that the HIV virus doesn't change. It changes constantly!

On page 139 he says:
"...A hundred billion billion mutant viruses later, HIV continues to do exactly the same thing, to bind the same way. If a mutant virus developed the ability to enter other kinds of cells by binding to other kinds of proteins, it might replicate more effectively and thus outcompete its siblings. That hasn't happened. Neither has much else happened at a molecular level. No new gizmos or basic machinery. There have been no reports of new viral protein-protein interactions developing in an infected cell due to mutations in HIV proteins. No gene duplication has occurred leading to a new function. None of the fancy tricks that routinely figure in Darwinian speculations has apparently been much use to HIV"

Do you dispute this information? If so, why? What if there really are limits to Natural Selection and mutations? Shouldn't we seek a cure based on what we know is true, rather than hoping it does something we haven't observed in HIV? Actually, it would be impossible to hope for such a thing anyway, because natural selection would, by definition, eliminate it a curable mutant if that is in fact what you are implying.

[chardog]

Originally Posted by whiskeyyy

It's funny when morons try to project their own dogmatism onto science. No, it is absolutely nothing like a religion for atheists you dolt.

it's vindication for atheism. Why else would you be so angry over a scientific theory?

You dont know what you are talking about.

Evolution is a theory in the same way that gravity is a theory. The idea that the human body is made-up of cells is also a theory. There is also plate-tectonic theory.

apples and oranges. the theories you present have been tested, and humans ARE made up of cells... fact, NOT theory.

So is gravity a religion also? How about belief that earthquakes are caused by plates?

A scientific "theory" is in no way, shape, or form the same as some religious myth. String theory, which is based on the complex math of physics, is not the same as a beleiving that one gets 72 virgins when they die. One is based on complex mathematics the other on hallucinations and dogma.

Evolution is based on solid science, observations in nature, and logic. Most religions are based on unfounded premises and illogical myths. Not the same thing.

911 truthers come up with a bunch of facts to support their theory.... imagine that. Global warming believers also come up with a lot of theories. Does it make them right?

Does being an evolution skeptic automatically mean you support religion?

[adren@line]

Originally Posted by chardog

it's vindication for atheism. Why else would you be so angry over a scientific theory?


apples and oranges. the theories you present have been tested, and humans ARE made up of cells... fact, NOT theory.


911 truthers come up with a bunch of facts to support their theory.... imagine that. Global warming believers also come up with a lot of theories. Does it make them right?

Does being an evolution skeptic automatically mean you support religion?

Cell theory is a theory. Look it up. So is gravity as is plate-tectonic theory. You just accept them as fact.

Truthers have more in common with religious nuts and global warming is still in debate, atleast with a select few people who like to politicize the issue.

I assumed you supported religion because the image you posted had a Biblical qoute at the bottom.

[GermanBJJ]

Originally Posted by chardog

If you think this is factually accurate, I suggest you do a little more research.

[Nietzsche13]

This thread hurts my head.

Its a good thing that most children naturally take to the sciences and thrive in its sustenance.

[Ultrashogun]

I dont believe in ID, but I think it should be taught. Keep the masses stupid and happy in their ignorance so the real smart people can rule the world.

[james123]

Originally Posted by chardog

it's vindication for atheism. Why else would you be so angry over a scientific theory?

Wouldn't people be just as angry if flat-earthers tried to get their ideas into textbooks?

apples and oranges. the theories you present have been tested, and humans ARE made up of cells... fact, NOT theory.

Evolution has been tested a billion times. Darwin himself showed example after example after example after example of how wings, eyes, etc evolved via intermediate stages, and how organs and limbs switched function, etc. What do you think population geneticists, etc have being doing over the past one and a half centuries?

Also, you can map the tree of life using genetics, the fossil record, etc, and every method results in the exactly the same tree, which would make no sense if we didn't share common ancestry with other organisms.

911 truthers come up with a bunch of facts to support their theory.... imagine that. Global warming believers also come up with a lot of theories. Does it make them right?

Bizarre analogy.

Does being an evolution skeptic automatically mean you support religion?

No, it makes you an easily manipulable, ignorant person.

[David Koresh]

So was HIV just designed out of thin air because god hates f***?

[J-Fight]

Originally Posted by David Koresh

So was HIV just designed out of thin air because god hates f***?

Why don't you stfu with our smart ass little comments. I bet in person you'd never talk to or about any person like your smug little posts you little fucking pushover. Constantly posting like you know more than everyone else and all "believers" are fucking idiots, when truth be told you're nothing but a little Internet troll.

I could fill the Hollywood Bowl with Theists that know more about science than you, have done more, seen more, contribute more to society, make more money than you do, have a nicer house, a better job, and could beat your ass in any fight discipline.

Your snotty little posts have gone far enough David Koresh you little pencil-pushing geek. Shut the hell up .... I bet you don't even train MMA.

And I ain't even Christian...

[niloroth]

Originally Posted by AJax

Did you read the book? I'm (ironically) reading the book right now, and happen to be on that very chapter.

Do you dispute this information? If so, why? What if there really are limits to Natural Selection and mutations? Shouldn't we seek a cure based on what we know is true, rather than hoping it does something we haven't observed in HIV? Actually, it would be impossible to hope for such a thing anyway, because natural selection would, by definition, eliminate it a curable mutant if that is in fact what you are implying.

And lets get some information from someone who actually works with HIV on a daily basis. (unlike behe.)

"I find it rather difficult to believe that you two haven't crossed paths, as Vpu turns up in a simple Google search. And as a matter of fact, Vpu is sitting right there in the totally unnecessary and worthless diagram in 'Edge of Evolution'. See? Right there:

If you had taken the time to label this pointless diagram, you might have noticed your error, and we wouldn't need to have this conversation. Alas, Vpu is a tiny molecule, and he's easy to overlook if you don't want to see him.

Vpu, is in fact, a new gene1. Of the five major phylogenetic groups of SIV, Vpu is only found in one group-- Chimpanzee SIV (SIVcpz) and its descendants—including HIV-1. It is absent in all of the other major lineages (Sooty Mangabey, African Green Monkey, Sykes Monkey, and L'Hoest Monkey). This means that Vpu is in HIV-1 but not HIV-2. 2

Ah, Michael Behe, you might try to talk your way around Vpu now (though you were evidently unaware of its existence moments ago) by insisting that it is not *new* new. "Sure it's new in chimpanzees, but its not *new* in HIV-1!" Sorry, you'll find no escape with that limp-wristed, ad hoc parry. SIVcpz Vpu and HIV-1 Vpu act in different ways, biochemically , which is predictable enough when you do something as simple as comparing amino acid sequences. For instance, if you compare a laboratory strain gag to SIVcpz gag, you get a similarity of ~75%3. Not too shabby. On the other hand, if you compare the subunit portion of env (the gene I use to create phylogenetic trees because it's the most variable between viruses) you get an AA similarity of only ~59.5%."

You will find all that and more at ERV: Michael Behe, please allow me to introduce myself...

Her blog is actually a great blog for debunking the weak arguments of the ID movement, and it is all from someone who actually works with evolution and viruses on a daily basis.

By the way, Behe was finally forced to admit he was wrong, not that he publicized that fact, or has even removed his hiv 'evidence' from newer printings, or his speeches. Wow, what a stand up guy.