Posted on 02/09/2009 10:37:36 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Thanks for the ping!
Outgoing?
Biology, particularly my field of Molecular Biology, has never been a more productive field in terms of gain of knowledge and useful application.
The reams of molecular data have supported the theory of evolution through natural selection of genetic variation so well that only deluded kooks and people with absolutely no knowledge of science could claim otherwise.
You have been saying for years now that Darwin’s theory is doomed, as Creationists have been claiming for over a hundred years; when in fact the more data that comes in the more support there is for the theory.
LOL! You can pretend that Darwood’s half-backed, unscientific theory, is not sinking all you want. Your credibility is going down with the HMS Beagle whether you like it or not. You should definitely start practicing your breast stroke, because it’s going to be a long way back to the shores of reason.
Pretend?
No, it comes from an inside look at what is happening in the world of molecular biology.
It has never been more productive in terms of information and application.
And genomic and molecular data has been stunning confirmation of common descent and evolution.
As I have demonstrated to you over and over...WRONG!
You have indeed demonstrated how wrong you are over and over again.
The idiotic sources you rely upon cannot even keep translation and transcription distinct, and you are far too ignorant of the subject to even realize their mistake, and yet you seek to correct me on the state of the theory that you do not even understand.
[[And genomic and molecular data has been stunning confirmation of common descent and evolution.]]
Yeah Yeah- you keep giving htese silly generalized claims over and over gain without ANY proof whatsoever- a typical lefty arguement- “There’s mountains ofevidnece’ Yet EVERY SINGLE TIME those evidences are examiend, they turn out to be NOTHING more that MICROevolution that some decievers try to push off as Macroevolution.
I’ve asked you to get specific instead of constantly engaging in obscure generalities, but apparently you’ve got nothing- Being the microbiologist that you clai mto be, it should be quite an easy task to present some of htis ‘stunning confirmaiton’ of MACROEvolution (This despite hte fact that NEVER in our history has there been a single incidence of MACROEvolution- but apparnelty, You’ve kept all this ‘stunning evidnece’ hidden away- so let’s have it. The world is awaiting this ‘stunning evidnece’. Oh- and I’m not itnerested in silly examples of MICROEvolution- Micro and Macro are two entirely different biological processes- You being the microbiologist that you are should be aware of htis, but we’ll see when you present your ‘reams of evidnece’
==and yet you seek to correct me on the state of the theory that you do not even understand.
Yes, it has been my lot to correct your MANY mistakes. Actually, they aren’t your mistakes per se, you were just naively following the lead of Darwood’s modern brethren and got yourself into trouble (which you can then be counted on to less-than-honestly paper-over once it finally dawns on you that the Temple of Darwin has led you astray).
You are so ignorant of the subject that you look to THOSE idiots as authoritative sources.
Laughable.
Typical Temple of Darwin fanatic, calling things you either can’t or refuse to undertand stupid. LOL
Stupid is not knowing the difference between transcription and translation yet thinking you can correct a biologist on the subject.
Stupid is Allmendream not knowing that ERVs and so-called pseudogenes are functional, and trying to pass-off the same as evidence for evolution.
What are the functions of the many thousands of ERV sequences in the human genome.
Do you argue that they are all functional for the host organism? Or was their primary function that of retroviral replication?
And it is not the functionality or non-functionality of ERV’s that are evidence for common descent, it is their pattern of nested hierarchy of similarity and divergence.
Whatever, dude. We have been all over this stuff, and you were (as usual) wrong.
You are wrong and remain wrong on any number of topics...
Humans and chimps are more closely related in DNA than either is to a gorilla, despite you saying it is a “logical impossibility”.
The GULO gene is not functional in primates.
The vast majority of ERV sequences are non functional and show low evolutionary conservation, those that have been found to be functional were found because of high evolutionary conservation.
They find HIV proteins, RNA, and antibodies against HIV in AIDS patients, not just anti HIV antibodies and “zero zip nada of anything else” as you incorrectly claimed.
The development of antibodies by shuffling of genetic elements takes place in the absence of antigen presentation.
Translation and transcription are not synonymous processes.
Islamic jihad nutbags are in fact jihadi Islamic nutbags and not “Temple of Darwin Fanatics”.
I have to agree. He shouldn't be expected to withdraw over a couple of whiners.
==Humans and chimps are more closely related in DNA than either is to a gorilla, despite you saying it is a “logical impossibility”.
I already presented you with phylogentic trees that demonstrate that the Evos can’t figure out which is closer to which.
==The GULO gene is not functional in primates.
Already pointed out that pseudogenes can have multiple functions, and demonstrated why the GULO gene cannot be used to establish common descent.
==They find HIV proteins, RNA, and antibodies against HIV in AIDS patients, not just anti HIV antibodies and “zero zip nada of anything else” as you incorrectly claimed.
Already demonstrated that all they find are bits and pieces of protein and RNA remnants that may or may not be related to HIV...and most importantly, that in most cases they can’t find actual INTACT HIV virions anywhere in HIV-positives or even patients with full-blown AIDS.
So, as usual, you are wrong, wrong, wrong. For the most part this is because you have been willingly led astray by the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism.
What economic expertise? He's never done any serious economic research in his entire career. He doesn't have an advanced degree in the subject. Nor does he have any professional experience as an economist, either in an academic or applied setting.
His Dad was a real economist, but that doesn't make him one.
Inviting him to give an economics talk at any university is an insult to real economists everywhere.
Stupid is not knowing the difference between transcription and translation yet thinking you can correct a biologist on the subject.
You keep pretending to speak for all biologists, all scientists, and so on.
www.dissentfromdarwin.org
BTW, didn’t you get the memo?
I don’t think Shucks gets a lot of things.
I would invite you to post the mountains of evidence where conservatives stand on this issue, including Jim Robinson...but I’ve already wasted enough time here on this post.
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.