Posted on 03/30/2010 2:34:25 PM PDT by Patriot1259
Should we keep the fossils at the museums off in a different area so they won't see them until they're ready?
When I consider the complexity of the electron transport chain, I understand why Creationists/ Intelligent Designers believe what they do. Then I remember that they have never heard of the electron transport chain.
"gratuitious"? Edumakation my friend. Edumakation!
“Should we keep the fossils at the museums off in a different area so they won’t see them until they’re ready?”
Only an academic, or someone who thinks they are, would make such a suggestion. Fossils are facts, at least when they aren’t made up ones. There is never any reason to hide facts.
It’s the grown-up fairy tales about those facts, which keep changing every few weeks, that children do not need to be burdened with.
There is no reason to “teach” (propagandize) children with any version of “origins.” Once they can teach children to read, to do arithmetic, speak read and write English, know something about the geography of the world, (and that Islands are not in danger of capsizing from overpopulation), then, perhaps, people’s various conjectures on origins might be talked about.
Hank
see my post #17. refute that.
“When I consider the complexity of the electron transport chain, I understand why Creationists/ Intelligent Designers believe what they do. Then I remember that they have never heard of the electron transport chain.”
Not sure who this was directed at, or even what it’s intention is. I do not believe in a diety, know that ID is absurd, and do not swallow the evolutionist fairy tales either. I have no idea why so many people are terrified to admit, with regard to origins, no one knows, and evolution is not science.
By the way, Darwin never heard of the “electron transport chain, or mitochondria, or adenosine triphosphate either.
What’s your point?
Hank
How do you propose that they be insulated from that concept in the meantime?
Congratulations, you've actually produced some sort of a halfway rational statement which might could be construed as supporting ape/hominid/human evolution if nobody ever took any sort of a harder look. Evolutionists on FR only get that far about once or twice every three or four years.
There are three possible explanations for how modern man got to this planet and macroevolution is not one of them. The three are these: Modern man was
1. Created here from scratch recently
2. Brought here from elsewhere in the cosmos
3. Genetically re-engineered from one of the hominids.
What the harder look would indicate in this case is that you might want to put your money on item 3. It would not altogether rule out items one or two.
Here's the basic problem: In order to be descended from something via any sort of process resembling evolution, at some point, you have to be able to interbreed with the something.
Now, it was always a big mystery as to why there was never any evidence of crossbreeding between modern humans and neanderthals despite evidence of the two groups living in close proximity for long periods of time; one fairly good description of the problem was published in Discover Magazine around 96.
And then, in the late 90s, they resolved the mystery by analyzing neanderthal DNA; the result they turned up was that neanderthal dna was about halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee and pretty much everybody involved in these studies views that as altogether eliminating the neanderthal as a plausible human ancestor. Even standard sources like PLOS Biology agree with this assessment.
Again as I noted, all other hominids were further removed from us THAN the neanderthal. In other words, if you wanted to go on thinking that we are descended from hominids, you would have to produce some new hominid closer to us both in time and morphology THAN the neanderthal and the works and remains of such a creature would be all over the map and exceedingly easy to find, had he ever existed. There is, of course, zero evidence of it.
The basic bottom line is that there is nothing on this planet which we could plausibly be descended from via any process resembling evolution.
Because we do know, and because evolution is one of the most established theories in science. Thanks for googleing "electron transport chain". Now at least you know ATP exists.
Here’s an article on my site that discusses a few of the problems with evolution. It was written by a geneticist friend of mine.
http://usabig.com/iindv/articles_stand/pee/evolution.php
She’s also a nurse, by the way.
Evolution is a fairy tale, just like creationism, only the story tellers of evolution have to keep changing their story, because they pretend it’s a science, just like environmentalists, another academic religion.
Why do people like you presume things about people you do not know and know nothing about?
Hank
Not only nonsense, but non-science as well
Germ cells replicate the genes of somatic cells. This is what is called a straw man argument. You make claims for your opponent that they would never make for themselves. It is a sign of ignorance or dishonesty. Democrats do it a lot.
“Germ cells replicate the genes of somatic cells.”
First, the writer did not claim evolutionist make the argument, it was hers. No straw man.
Second, germ cells do not replicate mutations unless the mutations are of germ cells. Which is the point you apparently did not understand. You can have mutations all through an organism, but if the germ cells are not affected, nothing will be passed on.
You do a lot of accusing and name calling, which is typical academic harrassment, not intellectual discussion. Before you call someone dishonest, ignorant, or imply they might be a Democrat, first get your science right.
Hank
Ofcourse this means recent mutations. How do you explain heriditary diseases like downs syndrome?
“Of course this means recent mutations. How do you explain heriditary diseases like downs syndrome?”
Not exactly. It means at the moment a mutation becomes a step in evolution, if there were such a thing, the mutation must be of germ cells. (I’m not arguing against evolution, only that at the present stage of knowledge, it is not yet a science.)
Since I’m not defending any particular view, I don’t need to “explain hereditary diseases.” Evolutionists always conveniently drop the main issue. It’s not evolution within species, but the “origin of species” that is the issue. Perhaps hereditary diseases are examples of evolution within species, but even so, they would be irrelevant to the question of whether one specie can evolve from another.
By the way. I have no objection to your believing in evolution if you are convinced it is science and true, anymore than I object to those theists that believe in creation, or ID. I think you are all mistaken, but lots of people are mistaken about a lot of things, but so long as their views are not forced on me, they do me no harm. But I have noticed something about most evolutionists I do not understand. Why do most, especially those in academia, become positively apoplectic when someone else doesn’t believe in evolution. What do they care? Perhaps you have some insight into that.
Hank
Your Post #17 is not a test.
It is an examination of something that exists today and trying to figure out what happened in the past.
You want absurdity?
Hemoglobin is made up of 287 Amino Acids that must be in sequence. There are 20 Amino Acids used in building life. The odds of Hemoglobin randomly assembling (randomly.... no intelligence) is 1/20 X 1/20 X 1/20, etc. The odds of getting hemoglobin end up being 1 X 2.5^373.... I’m sure you know that there are 373 zeros in that number. Just as a point of reference, Science estimates that the number of atoms in the known universe is 10^80.
Hemoglobin is one protein. Science argues about the number of proteins in the human body but on the low side of the estimates it is claimed to be 10,000. Hemoglobin is only one of those. What you saw above has to occur at least 9,999 more times.
While I’m thinking of it, here’s a few more questions for you:
1. How exactly did we get from organisms that reproduce asexually to those that produce sexually.....and then to just happen to have two different sets of plumbing evolve all at the same time to make it possible?
2. Which came first, blood or veins....or arteries.... or the heart? If the heart came first what did it pump? If the veins came first, how did the blood know (when it came along) that it was supposed to go inside the veins? Wait, it had to go through the heart first....how does it know that? Did the blood already have coagulating properties? How did it know not to coagulate while still inside the body?
3. Wendy referred to fruit flies in one of her posts. Everything I’ve ever read about these experiments is that no matter how many they radiate and no matter how many generations they go they wind up with one of three things: fruit flies, damaged fruit flies and dead fruit flies. Do you have an explanation for that?
4. We are told by science that macroevolution occurs via Natural Selection and Mutations. By definition, Natural Selection can only select out traits that already exist and there has never been a mutation that has ever been observed that increased genetic information....all have been information-neutral or lost information.
For evolution to be true then, since there hasn’t been a mechanism found that increases genetic information, I can logically infer that every trait of every living organism, bacteria, plant, animal or human had to have been in that first gene that popped out of the primordial mud puddle 4.5 Billion (or whatever number they are using now) years ago. What do you think the odds are of that?
I’ll close by saying something that I said in an earlier post. An epithet is not an argument. If you can’t make your point respectfully without insulting someone I can only assume that you are incapable of it.
brilliant read and the close was honorable as well.....got a question for you now..........why is 3/ 4’s of the earth covered in salt water
Hey advertising guy.... in real life I’m a printing guy. Life is tough, too much electronic communication going on.
The simple answer to your question is that I have no idea.
The only thing that I know about salt water is that when it evaporates the salt (and minerals) are left behind... meaning that rain is free from both.
Also... the percentage that I’ve always read is that 2/3 of the earth is water...including salt and fresh water.
Why do you ask the question?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.