Posted on 12/20/2005 7:54:38 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
By the way, you asked, "If an appeals court in another district makes a ruling . . . " Such a ruling would come first from another (trial-level) federal circuit court, not from an appellate court. Of course the appellate courts could get involved later, in any cases where there were grounds for appeal.
150? placemarker
The worst part of the ruling is that the school board is required to pay in full the court costs incured.
Except to see more law suits coming out of this.
You do know, don't you, that John Paul II supported evolution?
I don't think I'd call him full of "despair and hopelessness".
Can't say that kind of thing impresses me by itself anymore.
Your science requires the type of faith that I won't place in a mere theory.
Nonsense. It requires no "faith" at all, it requires familiarity with the evidence, understanding of the process involved, and knowledge.
Perhaps this essay will help you understand the difference: Do You Believe in Evolution?.
Seems to me that is as good a theory as the Big Bang.
I know of no way, in principle, to demonstrate that something cannot happen, particularly something that has left evidence of having happened.
I said there is a 99+% identity in the coding regions between chimps and humans and 98% identity overall. Yes there are some areas where the differences are greater, especially in non-coding regions.
Don't go to a Creationist website to get your information, go read the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science article for yourself. Can't find the reference right now, but I'll be glad to look if you promise to actually read it. If you're not going to make the effort, then neither will I.
Creationists are merely... wrong.
I actually think evolution is highly credible as science.
I am quite displeased with how ID scientists are treated.
Notice you now thoughfully refute my evidence on primates.
Earlier though, I was "in a parallel universe," because you dismissed out of hand the possibility of its existence.
This is how evolution proponents argue. It is wrong. And it does more to discredit evolution than any gap in the so called record.
For some reason, I doubt he gets accused of drinking in front of his children.
I don't understand the problem here. I posted a link that was pretty clear. Here it is again:
http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,57892,00.html
What is wrong with this?
Here is the conclusion of the article:
The Perlegen researchers compared human chromosome 21 with chimpanzee, orangutan, rhesus macaque and woolly monkey DNA sequences. In all the species, they found that DNA had been rearranged much more frequently during primate genome evolution than previously thought.
The DNA was often reordered in areas of the genome that contained functioning genes -- genes that researchers can investigate to find important clues about human health and the nature of disease.
The study didn't generate a new number expressing how similar or different chimpanzee DNA is from human DNA. However, researchers say, that number might be different depending on how it is measured anyway.
With new technologies like Perlegen's biochip, researchers can measure the genome at a much more minute scale than had been possible before.
The 98.5 percent difference between humans and nonhuman primates is based on differences between the two genomes' sequences of the letters A, T, C and G, which stand for the nucleotides adenine, cytosine, thymine and guanine. When researchers sequence the DNA of a genome, they use a machine like Applied Biosystems' ABI Prism 3700 to determine the order of the nucleotides. The letters form base pairs (A always binds to T and C always binds to G) that link together to form the rungs on the ladder of the DNA double helix.
But with technologies like Perlegen's "high-density array" -- a chip that allows scientists to look at whole genomes -- researchers can not only see missing base pairs, but also rearrangements of the base pairs in the genomes.
"(The research shows) how very interesting it is to look at small differences, whereas previously the focus was looking at broad differences," Gibbs said. "That's a suggestion of a paradigm shift."
Minnehaha Academy in Minneapolis
And you think fossil evidence has been "spliced"? Great. Show me.
What a weak analogy.
It must have been hard for you to come up with a valid criticism.
I'll have to use that example again.
Shortly after his death, Lady Hope addressed a gathering of young men and women at the educational establishment founded by the evangelist Dwight Lyman Moody at Northfield, Massachusetts. She had, she maintained, visited Darwin on his deathbed. He had been reading the Epistle to the Hebrews, had asked for the local Sunday school to sing in a summerhouse on the grounds, and had confessed: "How I wish I had not expressed my theory of evolution as I have done." He went on, she said, to say that he would like her to gather a congregation since he "would like to speak to them of Christ Jesus and His salvation, being in a state where he was eagerly savouring the heavenly anticipation of bliss." With Moody's encouragement, Lady Hope's story was printed in the Boston Watchman Examiner.Although the Wikpedia article does not recount that version, it does reveal a few flaws in
Shortly after his death, Lady Hope addressed a gathering of young men and women at the educational establishment founded by the evangelist Dwight Lyman Moody at Northfield, Massachusetts...
With Moody's encouragement, Lady Hope's story was printed in the Boston Watchman Examiner.
The Widow Denny did not travel to the United States before 1913, and the article appeaed in the Boston Watchman Examinier in 1915.
DL Moody died in 1899
Hope remarried in 1893 to T.A. Denny, an Irish businessman some 24 years her senior. She continued to use the name "Lady Hope" rather than "Mrs Denny".
That styling was socially dubious at best.
The Lady Hope story is a myth.
The scientific method includes much more than dependent vs independent variables. Synthetic organic chemistry is the first thing that comes to mind. Also, any qualitative aspect of science is outside that specific realm. In other words, not all science is quantitative.
The article you linked is OK, but your use of the word "considerable" and the implication that there is some startling new problem for evolution is nonsense.
What is interesting is that the coding reagions of DNA are mor similar than the non-coding. This is what you would expect if variation is subject to selection.
[...The Lady Hope story is a myth...]
MYTHunderstanding: A myth that debunks a myth.
Now I'm really confused. Did you read the article?
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.