Posted on 11/09/2008 8:08:40 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Can we say the same for scientists? Seems to me that when scientists make claims which are shown to be accurate, they use said claims as evidence of their alleged superior objectivity and reasoning skills. But when creationists are accurate, it gets poo-pooed?
Not very objective of you.
Where is the body of ID theory that can be tested and used to make successful predictions?
And what besides where to look for more fossils, can evolution be used to predict?
That *some* change is going to happen? A mutation that might do exactly what?
What's the next step in human evolution?
For once you are right. They have "no body of theory". They only have facts, unlike the evos who only have theories and no facts.
I’m having a hard time finding someplace where an evolutionary scientist said that ERVs and “junk DNA” would never be found to have a function. In fact, most scientists I find that discuss the issue say that organisms seem to have co-opted the ERV insertions and used them for their own purposes. Can you support, with sources, the assertion that “endogenous retroviruses have been found to have functions...invalidates the ‘random retrovirus insertion’ claim”?
"We think these things will prove to have some function" isn't really much of a hypothesis--it's about as impressive as "they're there because something put them there sometime, somewhere, somehow." Did any creationist/ID'er actually propose a function they might have and a test that could reveal that function? Or did they just sit back and wait for evolutionary scientists to learn something so they could point to it and say "We knew it all along"?
Results 1 - 10 of about 8,330,000 for evolution predictions.
More:
- Evolution predicts that features of living things will fit a hierarchical arrangement of relatedness. For example, arthropods all have chitinous exoskeleton, hemocoel, and jointed legs. Insects have all these plus head-thorax-abdomen body plan and 6 legs. Flies have all that plus two wings and halteres. Calypterate flies have all that plus a certain style of antennae, wing veins, and sutures on the face and back. You will never find the distinguishing features of calypterate flies on a non-fly, much less on a non-insect or non-arthropod.
- It was predicted that humans must have an intermaxillary bone, since other mammals do. The adult human skull consists of bones that have fused together, so you can't tell one way or the other in an adult. An examination of human embryonic development showed that an intermaxillary bone is one of the things that fuses to become your upper jaw.
- ...I predict that three specific DNA patterns will be found at 9 specific places in the genome of white-tailed deer, but none of the three patterns will be found anywhere in the spider monkey genome.
- Theory predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates. This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patients (Oliver et al. 2000).
- Ernst Mayr predicted in 1954 that speciation should be accompanied with faster genetic evolution. A phylogenetic analysis has supported this prediction (Webster et al. 2003).
- Insect wings evolved from gills, with an intermediate stage of skimming on the water surface. Since the primitive surface-skimming condition is widespread among stoneflies, J. H. Marden predicted that stoneflies would likely retain other primitive traits, too. This prediction led to the discovery in stoneflies of functional hemocyanin, used for oxygen transport in other arthropods but never before found in insects (Hagner-Holler et al. 2004; Marden 2005).
The problenm with that is when you go here and actually READ what the scientists have to say, you can't see a shred of religious injection: www.dissentfromdarwin.org
And, I've yet to see recent genuine critical peer review of evolution by the anit-God crowd either.
I'm also still waiting for your explanations as to how one would tell an ID scientist from a godless evo-cultist if their peer review didn't have their names attached to their works.
Mind you I'm not about to hold my breath becase it's not that you won't but it's because you can't answer to these observations!
Religious zealotry has no place in science.
I highly recommend the movie “Expelled” for you.
Thank you for taking the trouble to address my question. The third link (which is almost 10 years old) does use the word “nonfunctional,” though in context it seems to mean “doesn’t act as a live virus” more than “doesn’t do anything.” But the first link says, “The human genome contains many endogenous retroviral sequences, and these have been suggested to play important roles in a number of physiological and pathological processes.” And the second one says, “This compilation of HERV sequences and their coding potential provide a useful tool for pursuing functional analysis....” So I’m still not seeing a lot of support for the claim that evolutionary science ever insisted that ERVs have no function whatsoever.
As for your second question: I don’t know. All I know is that scientists hypothesize that the ERV sequences, once in place, were co-opted and used by the genome for other purposes. That idea does not strain my credulity.
As for your third question: I guess all my old posts got lost in that database meltdown. It’s true that I mainly participate in the evo threads, though even my recent posts show that I sometimes turn up elsewhere. But I jumped in way before last month. Why do you ask?
Expelled: No Intelligence Offered - part 1 (Win Ben Stein's Monkey Trial!)Long and thoughtful review of Expelled:Expelled (pdf file): No Intelligence Offered - part 2 (Ben in the Dock)
The Expelled Controversy: Overcoming or Raising Walls of Division, by Jeffrey P. SchlossConservative does not mean anti-science and anti-rational.
Which is exactly why more Americans are awakening to the god-hating evo-cult.
LOL...conservative does not equate to backing the godless liberal NEA and scurrying like rats to courthouses to silence Christians.
Good luck with THAT!
You select your reviews and I’ll select mine. Matter of fact I don’t need any since I saw the movie. I’ll bet you didn’t.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n2/expelled-review
I didn't see any of Michael Moore's movies either. The technique was the same, only the subject matter differed.
You must be one awesome individual. You don’t see the movies but you know what the content of them is. Truly amazing. I’ll bet everyone wishes that they wouldn’t have to spend their money to see a show. All they would have to do is peer into the glass ball and see the movies. Maybe you should become a movie critic. You could give reviews before the movies even come out. Networks would be clamoring for your services.
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.