Posted on 08/28/2002 9:36:04 AM PDT by gdani
Can you prove that?
A non-functional pseudogene is found in other primates as well. All have collected a fair number of mutations over the years. Comparison of the human, chimp, orangutan and macaque monkey pseudogene shows a number of shared mutations as well as unshared mutations. Among the shared mutations is a deletion resulting in a frameshift which could have led to functional loss of the gene. Based on these comparisons, conversion of the active gene to a pseudogene occurred prior to the primate and old world monkey split.
Dietary habits at that time may not have maintained positive selection for the functional gene.
Well, duh. Since atheism is an absence of belief in God, making the existence of God axiomatic would invalidate atheism within that framework. The problem is that the existence of God is not axiomatic in science (but then, nothing really is in science). For that matter, evolution is not axiomatic in science either, but the creationists pretend like it is because it fits their world view. There are other perfectly scientific and mathematically sound theories for speciation besides evolution, a few of which are gaining steam in scientific circles. It looks to me like you are fighting the wrong battle.
But, it's a "scientifically proven" coincidence! FR's pro-evo crowd has yet to honestly admit that Darwin's THEORY has not earned any status beyond THEORY. Questioning the dogma of their religion is treated as utter scientific "blasphemy", and followers of such "heresy" are deemed unintelligent, at best. Hence, we are blessed with such works of brilliance as:
DIMENSIO post#3: The author of the article is a moron who ignorantly equates evolution and atheism. . . . Now that's an irrefutable scientific point of proof! - NOT
Neither creationists nor evolutionists can demonstrate by scientific experimentation their respective theory of origin. Each believes his theory is correct and supports that belief with observations believed to be the result of his non-provable process of origin. Only those who state that their view of origin is ultimately a belief system honestly participate in this debate.
In this debate, only the dogmatists are morons. BTW, Cal Thomas' article does not present his position in dogmatic fashion.
I will have to disagree with you on this one. With the coming genetic revolution, what well-off and well-meaning parents won't buy their embyonic children an intellectual upgrade, an enhanced immune system, stunningly good looks, and/or eliminate some recessive errors? They might even buy a fix for that vitamin-C genetic error and save money on children's vitamins (or would that make us more like monkeys instead of chimpanzees and apes). We might even get to the point where we can design out children's genetic code completely although I'm sure the the government will step in at some point and mandate some changes and prohibit others (not that anyone will pay attention to that).
Yes, and you'll get a Democrat evolutionist.
I'm sure it will happen sooner or later along with the complete copyright notice, the warranty fineprint, and the EULA.
Perhaps he would like us to teach alchemy alongside chemistry and astrology alongside astronomy too. They are alternative views also.
And while we are at it, why are we teaching this blatantly atheistic, newfangled theory that the earth revolves around the sun?
Interesting examples. When I was a student, it was axiomatic that a theory can be proven by its ability to predict what would happen if certain things were done. In chemistry, mixing A with B always produces C under specified conditions.
I do not have any clear ideas about what we believe to be true about supernovas. However, I am fairly confident that we cannot be certain how stars become supernovas until we are able to reproduce this phenomenon. By the way, how far away should a star be before we can induce it to go supernova … safely?
In the case of nuclear decay, we may not be able to determine when a particular nucleus will decay, but we can predict the aggregate decay of a collection of nuclei. Without this knowledge and the ability to predict and reproduce it time and time again, the nuclear bomb or a nuclear reactor would not be possible (or at least very, very hazardous [grin]).
Animal behavior is also predictable in the aggregate. We can tell with a high degree of certainty that a herd of caribou will do certain things: migrate, forage for food, breed, etc. The inability to predict whether caribou “Alf” will go left or right at any particular moment is if no consequence in our ability to predict what the entire herd will do.
Biochemistry is a science because we have learned many of it’s laws. We can predict what will happen if we combine X with Y under conditions Z. If we have absolutely no clue as to any of the these issues you may be full of theories, but they are nothing more than guesses.
Generally, science gives us a handle on things, or at least a reasonable hypothesis on how things work. In a very large number of cases we know enough to be able to use our knowledge of cause and effect to predict. It seems to me that our attempt to validate evolutionary theory rests on the assumption that given enough time, anything is possible. We then use shards of bone, imprints in the rocks and petrified remains to fit pieces of a puzzle into a predetermined pattern, papering over large holes with a fertile imagination.
So, where does that leave us? I suppose anyone can call anything a “science.” Is there a “science” of history? It seems to me that the entire discussion of evolution, it could be argued, is simply a subset of whatever we call history … and the study of history is usually found in the “arts” not the “sciences.”
Dogs have been bred for thousands of years. What dog breeding shows is that you cannot change a species by selection, whether natural or selected. In fact, the more selection, the less viable a species becomes:
That shows that you have no understanding of what speciation is. For starters, plenty of species can interbreed; old scientific definitions make this mistake, but they are woefully out of date, and simply repeating them as dogma does not make them true. One can have two different species that are capable of interbreeding (lions and tigers, for instance). Man cannot breed dogs into seperate "species", by which you mean, groups incapable of interbreeding with each other, because it is not the difference in appearance which makes species unable to breed with each other, but rather genetic drift and mutation, which takes place over millions of years. Given enough time, if these man made dog "species" were kept from breeding with each other, they would develop into species incapable of breeding with each other. But in the short term, speciation is accomplished simply by selecting which features get passed on to the next generation - either by natural selection, or by man made selection. Whether we call these species "species", or something else, is a matter of semantics, not science. But then, the anti-evolutionary crowd has always been big on semantics and weak on actual science.
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.