Posted on 04/05/2006 10:32:31 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Round-off error?
Evolution is not a fact. It is based on assumptions. Hoping that the results will concur with the theory...
It is far more easier to accept the fact that there is a beginning for all creatures at one pint in time and that they learn to adapt to environmental changes. Eskimoes adapted to the artic environment, yet they are still human. That is not evolution.
Thats not new knowledge. That is the result of a more logical deducted argument for proof based on better deduction, information, and skill.
Evolution will simply go away as soon as someone provides a better scientific explanation of ongoing change. Thats the sole requirement. Its that simple but I would not waste time waiting or holding my breath.
Evolution is defined as ongoing change whether by reproduction or nature. 6.7 billion people have observed they are different and most will agree that no two are the same. Zavien would be a exception. Look in the mirror and look at a picture of your parents. If there is any difference no matter how small some evolution or change has occurred. However if evolution is not a fact and you can observe no change, difference or evolution then your premise is true and you are a clone. Zavien should write a scientific theory or book explaining his cloning!!!
Reproductive cloning is a technology used to generate an animal that has the same nuclear DNA as another currently or previously existing animal. Dolly was created by reproductive cloning technology.
In a process called "somatic cell nuclear transfer" (SCNT), scientists transfer genetic material from the nucleus of a donor adult cell to an egg whose nucleus, and thus its genetic material, has been removed.
The reconstructed egg containing the DNA from a donor cell must be treated with chemicals or electric current in order to stimulate cell division. Once the cloned embryo reaches a suitable stage, it is transferred to the uterus of a female host where it continues to develop until birth.
Dolly or any other animal created using nuclear transfer technology is not truly an identical clone of the donor animal. Only the clone's chromosomal or nuclear DNA is the same as the donor. Some of the clone's genetic materials come from the mitochondria in the cytoplasm of the enucleated egg. Mitochondria, which are organelles that serve as power sources to the cell, contain their own short segments of DNA. Acquired mutations in mitochondrial DNA are believed to play an important role in the aging process.
Dolly's success is truly remarkable because it proved that the genetic material from a specialized adult cell, such as an udder cell programmed to express only those genes needed by udder cells, could be reprogrammed to generate an entire new organism. Before this demonstration, scientists believed that once a cell became specialized as a liver, heart, udder, bone, or any other type of cell, the change was permanent and other unneeded genes in the cell would become inactive. Some scientists believe that errors or incompleteness in the reprogramming process cause the high rates of death, deformity, and disability observed among animal clones: http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/cloning.shtml
As I have said before, there are no true clones
Then change occurs or is ongoing?
That is not evolution...
It that were the case, then we would be progressivley getting smarter, stronger and live longer. We know that isn't the case. We would also see less and less of genetic deformaties, which isn't the case either.
You are implying that reproducing causes evolution...
Evolution would mean that the appendix, toncils and uvula would have had to have to be phased out after all these years, after all, we don't need them in the body...
Sure it is.
No, that is adaptation, they are still human...
of course change occurs, the environment will cause the change for us to adapt, the species stays the same.
Definition of Evolution
Evolution: The continuing process of change, especially in reference to natural selection.
Evolution is defined by science not your opinion and wouda, shouda, couda.
Take the time to learn the definitions of evolution. Darwin did not use the term. He used the terms change and difference. Evolution is a later term to include both change and difference. The term evolution is used both as meaning to the observed fact of evolution and the theory of evolution. The theory is the explanation of the fact.
I guess you were trying to be funny. BUt the fact is, pure numbers aside, whites are not associated with swinging in trees, jokes aren't made about them being apes/monkeys/etc and they are not directly linked with the welfare class.
There'd be NO reason for that to come to mind (hanging around in trees) other than some racial notion in her head.
I'm hard-pressed to explain why hardly any of you creationists have stepped up to the plate to take the survey in post 946.Our response would be essentially that of the "Mainstream scientists" line. But if any evos disagree with that, they should speak up, too. I'll split the responses into evos & creos.And how many E's have?
What DIFFERENCE would it make to fill in the boxes in this poll anyway?Creationists claim to be interested in science, too. Only they call theirs the "true" science, as opposed to the evolutionists' "sham" science. So if there is an unbridgeable gap between ape & human, then a creationist scientist - or lay follower of creation science as most of the creationists here are - should be interested in deciding for themselves where exactly the insurmountable barrier between the God-created kinds lies.
Using your creationist scientific postulates, where do you think the insurmountable barrier lies in #946?
I didn't say it was new knowledge. I said it's methods can expose false premises. It is useful when applied with logic and reason. It may not provide new info, but it can weed out bad info.
Hey, fine... I ain't arguing. The fight isn't with me. Take it up with the one who created you.
Believe what you want. Remember that believing really hard into something doesn't make it truth...
There were scientists that believed the sun revovled around the earth, that there were only 5 planets and the earth was flat....With thier evidence to prove it!
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.