Posted on 09/10/2012 2:29:35 PM PDT by neverdem
A narrative has developed over the past several years that the Republican Party is anti-science. Recently, thanks to the ignorant remarks about rape made by Rep. Todd Akin, the Democrats have seized the opportunity to remind us that they are the true champions of science in America. But is it really true?
No. As we thoroughly detail in our new book, "Science Left Behind," Democrats are willing to throw science under the bus for any number of pet ideological causes – including anything from genetic modification to vaccines.
Consider California’s Proposition 37, which would require genetically modified food to carry a warning label. The American Medical Association is opposed because “there is no scientific justification for special labeling of bioengineered foods.” Every major scientific and regulatory agency -- including the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, the World Health Organization, EPA, FDA, and USDA -- recognizes the importance of genetic modification.
Yet, the California Democratic Party has officially endorsed Proposition 37 -- in direct opposition to the recommendation of America’s finest doctors and in contradiction to the scientific consensus. The Republicans endorsed the pro-science position. Did this fact make the news? No.
Digging deeper into the issue, one finds that California Democrats have de facto allied themselves with some of the biggest anti-science quacks in America. Among Prop 37’s most fervent supporters are peddlers of alternative medicine, anti-vaccine groups, and even one crank who claims that genetically modified food causes autism.
This anti-science mentality is not a recent development. The Democratic Party has long made common cause with prominent people who thought vaccines caused autism, two in particular who stand out among the rest.
The first person is Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who published an influential article in Rolling Stone and the progressive website Salon back in 2005 tying vaccines to...
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
And where does this *belief* come from? Phony fudged data, altered to fit some bullsheet 'Hockey Stick' computer model that nobody else can duplicate when the correct data is used. That ain't 'Science', it's making snake-oil.
But they need evolution so they can take God out of any equation of life. That's required so they don't have to feel 'guilt' for being perverted degenerates and not having to pay any price -- aka: Final Judgment -- for their mentally deranged, sick, 'choice of lifestyle'.
A God in that picture just ruins everything.
Note: I omit the Big-Bang as belief in that is not mutually exclusive from belief in the existence of God, i.e: If there was a Big-Bnag, there had to be a Big-Banger.
Then there’s the science of forensic analysis of data, like PDF files.........
True. Years ago a prof I had for a lecture stated that data remains the same but the explanation and interpretation of that data is never fixed and is always open to be challenged and changed.
I understand your comment, but have to say that myth trumps truth every day in society, and often science trumps truth. There was recently a publication in Nature in which a guy who was the head of Amgen’s cancer drug development program for many years selected 53 landmark studies in cancer research, from high impact factor journals and high profile labs and had a team of about 100 researchers try to replicate the results of these studies. They could only replicate 6.
When they told one of the researchers they did his experiment 50 times and never got the result he got, that researcher said ‘we did the experiment 6 times, got that result once, and published it’.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/28/us-science-cancer-idUSBRE82R12P20120328
Bayer did a similar study and found that >2/3rds of the published studies they investigated could not be replicated.
The bottom line, to me, is that no one has a lock on truth, or a right to be arrogant based on self-perceived ‘superior knowledge’. I've had many conversations over the years with scientists who scoff at the idea of God and at religion. I personally find it intellectually shallow to believe that everything exists for no reason, and to summarily dismiss spirituality and faith. This world view is, in fact, its own type of ‘leap of faith’ - faith in the secular. Dogma, including secular dogma, is often the enemy of truth, IMHO.
It is “science, falsely so called”. (1 Tim 6:20)
I have a libinlaw who, for every challenge to her belief system, refers to “science”. I ask her to explain what she means by the term and she never can, and doesn’t care to. That’s the end of it as far as she’s concerned.
Heck, they don’t even realize that two men can’t make a baby.
Blame Tim Russert for the terms "red state" and "blue state", in the 2000 election.
Until then, blue was more often Conservative Republican, red for Democrat / Socialist / Soviet Communist.
In other words, it was strictly a debate amongst the leftist media, so naturally they chose "true blue" for themselves, and designated the opposition as "radical red Republicans" -- an exact reversal of the historical symbolism.
Of course, they claimed it was because "r" = Republican = red.
But year 2000 just as strongly reflects the approximate time when Liberal-Democrat-Socialism became dominant political orthodoxy -- which the (blue) leftist media felt necessary to defend against those bad (red) aggressive Conservatives trying to cut back on their big-government.
For consolation, Conservatives clearly own "red-blooded American" and even "redneck".
Further, in military symbols, red represents courage and sacrifice, which certainly are appropriate for Conservatives.
And yes, in military terms, "red" is the aggressor force, but in training exercises, it often refers to the highly-skilled select group of permanent cadre, whose mission is to play aggressor force in order to train regular (blue) units in realistic war games.
So in military training, "red" aggressor forces are the teachers, by analogy to politics, teachers of traditional Conservative constitutional values to people who might otherwise have no clue.
So bottom line: yes, "red" conservatives are a role-reversal imposed on us by the leftist media, but on the other hand, I'm not certain if we shouldn't wear our new color with pride.
After all, youuuuuuuuu just might be a red-neck!
;-)
Don’t misunderstand me, please. I’m not arguing for abortion, but for a better definition of conception. One that will clearly define our position both scientifically and spiritually. We need to win on this one.
And I argue that “conception” occurs exactly when we all learned it did in science class.
When the sperm fertilized the egg - they both lose the DNA identity of their hosts, and a new DNA code is formed. That is because a new life has formed. Left alone - in the body - where conception has occurred for millenia (up until recently), this new life will either implant and continue to grow or it will not.
That some of these embryos will not survive that process does not mean that our lives did not begin at the moment of “conception”
Not sure what you mean by “lose the DNA identity of their hosts”.
A sperm or egg cell is produced by meiosis. The original cell has the DNA of the person, one of each chromosome from mom and one of each from dad. This is mixed up so the NEW resulting DNA pattern in the reproductive cell is unique to that cell, and that cell will only have HALF the DNA of the parent cell.
When the sperm and the egg combine each half forms a new whole - but nothing happens with the DNA other than that it is combined with the ‘missing’ half.
The sperm cell is alive, the egg is alive - both have the DNA of the parent - but in a new configuration.
What I mean is....the new organism does not possess the same dna as the sperm - nor does it possess the same dna as the egg.
Rather - it possesses the new arrangement - the DNA that will follow that new life for the rest of its life.
Yes - the new DNA code is comprised from the mother and father - but is not the same. It is unique to this particular life.
It is the point in time we can point to and say “there”! - That person’s origin is here!
That is when human development begins. We all learned this in science class.
Yes....this life will continue to grow a few days later as it implants into the uterine lining.
If implantation does not go well, it will die.
That does not mean it was not alive prior to implantation.
The new organism DOES possess the exact same DNA as the sperm AND it does possess the exact same DNA as the egg. That was my point.
The only thing different is that now the DNA from the sperm and the DNA from the egg are in physical proximity within the same plasma membrane.
There is nothing magical about DNA. And there is no DNA change associated with combining the haploid genome of the sperm with the haploid genome of the egg.
A son does not have the same DNA sequence as his father. Nor does he have the same DNA sequence as his sibling - unless he is an identical twin.
All I am pointing out is that the DNA sequence that is unique to every person - is bestowed upon them at conception.
I know I am not using specific scientific terms you would like me to use....My posts on this thread started over where we should place the “beginning” of a human life....at conception - or at implantation.
or instead of “sequence” I probably should use the word “fingerprint”
I think you know what I mean?
Sure they are ....just ask NASA !
But my point is that their unique DNA sequence (or fingerprint) is NOT bestowed upon them at conception - the only thing that happens upon conception is that the two halves are made whole.
My wife is 9 months pregnant. Half of the unique DNA sequence of my daughter was made in the days before conception in my testes when I made the sperm that fertilized my wife’s egg; and the other half was made when my beloved wife was inside HER mother when she made the egg that I fertilized.
What happened at conception was that these two unique DNA sequences (one that was made a couple days before, the other that was made decades ago) were finally combined in physical proximity within the same plasma membrane of the fertilized egg.
Nothing special has to happen to the DNA for a unique human life to begin at conception, that is my other point.
The only thing that happened nine months ago to my daughter’s DNA was that my half was put in physical proximity to the half my wife provided.
And that process produced this being that you refer to as “daughter” yes?
And the fingerprint she carries with her for life began at that point?
So what point did she begin to exist? At conception? or at implantation?
That is what was being discussed earlier - some folks want to place the marker of “beginning of life” at implantation
What happened at conception was that these two halves were put in physical proximity with the correct molecular machinery and in a location where they would result in a baby.
As to when my daughter began to exist with a COMPLETE human genome - that was at conception. As to when those unique human DNA sequences were formed - days before conception for my half - decades before conception for my wife's half.
You said “When the sperm fertilized the egg - they both lose the DNA identity of their hosts, and a new DNA code is formed.” That is incorrect.
When sperm is formed in the testes it loses “the DNA identity of their host”, the DNA sequences are mixed between parental chromosomes and only HALF ends up in the resulting cells.
When eggs are formed (women do this while still unborn) those eggs lose “the DNA identity of their host”, the DNA sequences are mixed between parental chromosomes and only HALF ends up in the resulting cell.
Conception DOES NOT result in “a new DNA code” being “formed”. Conception results in two different unique DNA sequences (one a couple days old, the other a couple decades or more old) coming into physical proximity within the same cell.
Nothing special has to happen to the DNA for life to begin at conception - let alone ‘a new DNA code being formed’.
Two points.
One - conception does not result in anything different happening to the DNA other than the two halves being brought into physical proximity.
Two - ‘a new DNA sequence being formed’at conception is NOT necessary for a unique human life to begin at conception.
“As to when my daughter began to exist with a COMPLETE human genome - that was at conception. As to when those unique human DNA sequences were formed - days before conception for my half - decades before conception for my wife’s half.”
OK. Great! We agree! (BTW - congratulations)
“You said “When the sperm fertilized the egg - they both lose the DNA identity of their hosts, and a new DNA code is formed.” That is incorrect.”
OK - clumsy as I am, I am trying to make the point that at fertilization a new organism has formed. It has become it’s own life with it’s own fingerprint that is not “the same as” the fingerprint of either contributing parent. It then begins the stages of development of a human person.
By “identity” - what I am referring to is the ability to identify any huuman being by their dna fingerprint...or profile.
“DNA sequences are mixed between parental chromosomes and only HALF ends up in the resulting cells”
OK - Gotchya
“When eggs are formed (women do this while still unborn) those eggs lose “the DNA identity of their host”, the DNA sequences are mixed between parental chromosomes and only HALF ends up in the resulting cell.”
OK - Got that
“Conception DOES NOT result in “a new DNA code” being “formed”. Conception results in two different unique DNA sequences (one a couple days old, the other a couple decades or more old) coming into physical proximity within the same cell.”
ok - so like you said earlier - a complete human genome has been formed.
“Nothing special has to happen to the DNA for life to begin at conception - let alone ‘a new DNA code being formed’.”
hmmm....not sure what you mean by nothing special. The combination of the 2 cells that produces new life is quite special indeed. Just wait till sweet baby girl wraps daddy around her finger!
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.