"Right...what's a cubit?"
Posted on 12/20/2005 7:54:38 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
Fox News alert a few minutes ago says the Dover School Board lost their bid to have Intelligent Design introduced into high school biology classes. The federal judge ruled that their case was based on the premise that Darwin's Theory of Evolution was incompatible with religion, and that this premise is false.
INCOMING!!!!!!!
"Right...what's a cubit?"
OK, once more, slowly this time.
Almost all mammals produce their own ascorbic acid. The exceptions are guinea pigs, some fruit bats, and the great apes, including people.
The really interesting thing is that we share the exact same mutation with the other apes. (Guinea pigs and bats have different mutations).
That is, in our (and chimp and gorilla and...) DNA there there is a stretch that is exactly like the gene for an enzyme called GLO in other mammals, except that there is a single mutation (a frameshift that totally scrambles the protein that corresponds to the gene).
The exact same mutation. One base pair away from not needing vitamin C.
This makes ID quite untenable. If we were designed to need dietary ascorbic acid, why include a defective copy of the gene that synthesizes it in other mammals?
And why should the exact same defect appear only in those species that were already thought to have a common ancestor?
And finally, why is this pattern repeated over and over in the genes of people, chimps, gorillas, et al?
Doesn't standard biology provide the best explanation?
Lack of answer by Protagoras noted.
No athiests documented as supporting slavery.
One "Christian" documented as supporting slavery.
Also, just as slowly for you, WHAT makes this more profound than ANY OTHER DNA molecules shared by EVERY carbon-based lifeform on the planet?
Perhaps you should post the article you are taking this from..just a suggestion- plagiarism is such an ugly thing.
Not so- those who live their faith would have no problem accepting evolution. There is no problem regarding evolution as a tool of the Creator.
What we DO object to are the REASONS for ejecting ID from the public debate- and keep in mind, some scientists and mathematicians DO accept the idea of ID withOUT the concept of God- is to denigrate people of faith and ANY idea of something greater than man.
It is NOT our side that wants to do away with evolution, but rather, THEIR side which would do so to ID.
This is anti-intellectual, unreasonable and anti-free speech....a distinctly left-wing tactic. Wouldn't you agree?
For the life of me, I do NOT see your reach between apples and oranges here.
Jesus lived 2000 years ago and since He has not come back yet, then evolution must be true? What connection ARE you attempting here?
And I suggest that those with the closed minds are those on your side. Our side suggests that BOTH be taught- yours would teach only one.
Adaptation is NOT evolution. I do not know HOW many ways I could say that before you get it.
ANY adaptation is TEMPORARY and when returned to the wild or removed from the controlling situation (positive breeding), ALL forms revert to their natural state. There has NEVER been a situation where that has been different. For example: IF you removed the advances of modern medicine and modern medical science, WE would return to our previous lifespans and body dimensions. IF you stop selectively breeding livestock (of ANY kind), it will revert to its previous wild state. The same is true of plants. The fact that they REVERT is proof that it is NOT proof of "evolution".
Mutations, also not "proof", are "dead ends"- not viable and cannot breed.
So once again, I will state- there is NO proof of evolution and has BEEN NONE since the THEORY was first proposed. Even Darwin died doubting it.
One line assures that I will never respond to someone like you, and certainly not YOU ever again.
I am under the assumption- and believe it still- that THIS site might offer postings somewhat above the level of your typical "americaonline juvenile". Apparently that is not always so judging from your post to me.
I do not drink and your assumptions about a person you do not know only make YOU look stupid....and I feel quite comfortable saying this to you just based on what you have posted.
I repeat: There are those posters in here who are leftists looking for trouble or "libertarian light" types who have no conception of what being a libertarian is about. YOU are one of those.
While I am quite sure you think your smarmy post made you seem knowledgeable or "worldly", let me hasten to assure you- you come across merely small, mean and stupid.
One thing I have learned from this and other websites- when I become the issue, rather than the stated topic, the opposition has lost the argument.
Now it gets boring...
So, when you said,
" At worst some of you are nothing more than "stealth" lefties looking to start trouble and, at BEST, the very sort of libertarian- boozy, beer-soaked frat boy, short sighted and hedonistic thinkers who can't imagine an issue beyond your pleasure, your money, your convenience, your porn and your dope issues.."
This made you look....what? :)
Well, if you're going to show your ignorance, might as well do it SHOUTING....
Show me any one example of your claim that adaptations have "reversed themselves". Show me one example where any plant or animal has "reverted" to it's "natural state" (whatever that is....). And if you can show the DNA evidence that backs that claim, you would impress me even more.
Also, what do you claim is our "previous lifespan and body dimensions"?
And by the way, please quit posting that many-times-debunked claim that Darwin recanted on his deathbed. It's a deliberate lie at this point, in my opinion. You must subscribe to the idea that if you shout your lie often enough, you will be believed.
[prediction - when asked to provide evidence, 13 will do one of three things: 1. Become more beligerent, shouting that I just wouldn't believe it anyway; 2. ignore the request altogether; 3. post a link to a "creation/ID scientist's" writings, claiming the same thing without evidence]
"A dachshund returned to the wild will not revert back to a *wild type* dog. "
On the other hand, the dachshund's descendents may evolve some "wild-like" adaptations of their own over a few thousand generations....
Just a nit-pick.
Absolutely. They couldn't "revert" in the sense that 13sisters implies. They would in fact evolve again, to adapt to the new environment (well, new to the dachshund, anyway... you know what I mean! ;-))
So far, how's my prediction from a few posts ago holding up?
I should also add that there is a very good chance that most of the animals we have selectively bred will simply die when reintroduced into the wild, as they are no longer well adapted to the environments they came from. My guppies for instance would be fish food very quickly, as the wild type is far drabber in color and these ones would stick out terribly with their long fins and bright colors.
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.
