- Oh you mean similar to this.
Posted on 10/11/2002 9:02:01 PM PDT by gore3000
That science has provided many benefits is true. However, that does not mean that evolution is science. It is not. There have been no benefits derived from evolutionary theory. In fact, evolutionary theory has slowed scientific advance considerably. Some examples:
1. Evolutionists challenged Mendelian genetics and said it was not true all the time. It is of course correct all the time what confused the issue was that often more than one gene was responsible for some traits but the evos sticking to their stupid melding theory tried to confuse the issue.
2. When DNA was discovered the evos insisted on the 'one gene, one protein, one trait' theory required by their stupid reductionist theory. This was found to be wrong and in fact some genes make dozens of proteins.
3. When it was found that 95% of DNA was not used to make proteins, the evos posited that the 95% of DNA was junk and useless. Luckily by then no one paid much attention to what evolutionists had to say. This was quickly found to be wrong and the non-coding DNA is now the basis for most biological research.
You are giving a lot of ifs in there. First is has to be dominant, that's a 50/50 chance. Then it has to be beneficial, the odds of that is the big problem. As I explained, neutral mutations will almost certainly die off. This is a mathematical fact proceeding directly from Mendelian genetics. It is irrefutable. Even slightly beneficial mutations will die off and not take over because the odds against a single mutation taking over a whole population. So all that could take over a whole population is a largely beneficial mutation. Problem with that is for any new feature, for any new function, indeed for any new gene you would need a multiplicity of mutations. These are not all going to occur at once. Since neutral and slightly beneficial mutations will die off very quickly and only spread to very few individuals, this accumulation of mutations is impossible and therefore evolution is impossible.
And I completely reject the silly explanations that have been given. There is no satisfactory explanation for the Cambrian and for the lack of intermediate fossils in all important places that is why you do not wish to discuss it.
2) Your article does not indicate that DNA evidence refutes evolution.
Of course it does. To create a new gene ab novo is almost impossible. Even a small gene with some 300 codons is an impossibly hard thing to happen since the chances are 22^300 (an average gene has some 300 codons). A single one of these new genes would be an almost miraculous event but it would be possible, however since duplicate genes only serve functions to the original, for evolution to be true you would need millions of totally new genes to account for all the differences between the millions of species in existence.
Nonsense. No one knows how blonde hair and blue eyes came about so saying they are mutations is just another evolutionist assumption. In addition to which, even if they were, it is not something that makes a species more complex or transforms it into something different. So even if it could be proven to be a mutation it would not be any sort of proof for evolution.
I point you to the title of this thread.
I did a stint in the military in the early sixties. During basic training, my dog tag had NO REL PREF listed as my religion. My DI took umbrage with that, saying that it wasn't possible not to have a religion.
He asked me what religion my parents practiced, and I told him they were Presbyterian. He had my records changed to show my religion as Protestant.
There's always someone who needs to fit everyone else into categories...
Thank you for your service.
And here's another site with loads of links: Creation "Science" Debunked. In the link "Creationist Misquotes" there's some info on Patterson, a mini topic in one of the current crevo threads.
Somebody's crabby this morning.
Your statement:
That's how "The discovery that human-specific retroviruses emerged at the same time other researchers believe humans and chimps diverged was startling" came about. As noted for this happen all of a sudden, all of them working together, is unexplainable by evolution.
The rest of the paragraph from the article:
The discovery that human-specific retroviruses emerged at the same time other researchers believe humans and chimps diverged was startling. Equally interesting, however was the discovery that the oldest subfamily of HERV elements is closely related and gave rise to the youngest and most recently active group of these elements. This suggests, the authors say, that "ancient families of HERVs may be capable of retaining the potential for biological activity over long spans of evolutionary time."
I leave it to the discerning reader to determine where the reading comprehension problem lies.
(Maybe this can be a training question for people scoring the new SAT's.)
Dear Aggie,
No. I'm sure you can calculate the rate of mass loss to first order. Why don't you do so, and tell the class what that number is. Please show all of your work. To make it easy, you can assume that the Sun is all hydrogen, and that the byproducts cannot burn (both wrong). Assume that all reactions are from the P-P chain. Good luck.
Cheers,
Thinkplease.
The fossils of Basilosaurus cetoides (Owen) and Zygorhiza kochii (Riechenbach) were the first of many fossil finds that show that modern whales, e.g. the humpback whales evolved from dog-like creatures known as Mesonychids. Both Basilosaurus and Zygorhiza, exhibit unmistakable characteristics of the terrestrial Mesonychids from which they developed. For example, their skulls retained many of the features of the mesonychids despite a pronounced elongation. Also, the primitive whales such as Basilosaurus pocessed the distinctive, teeth set of the Mesonychids with well-defined incisors, canines, premolars, and multirooted molar. In addition, these whales, e.g. Basilosaurus, had well-defined vestigial rear legs (Gingerich et al. 1990, 1993, Thewissen 1994).
Gore3000 writes a lots of things.
F'rinstance: Post 472 of this thread:
Followed shortly thereafter at post 531 wherein he pitches a hissy fit about being corrected while simultaneously pretending that Junior started the whole thing:
Of course, if you want to see a REALLY wild orbit, check this out.
For a long time, Basilosaurus was among the earliest known whales being found in rocks as old as Middle Eocene. Since its discovery in 1834, no older primitive whales transitional to ancestral land-mammals had been discovered from earlier rocks leaving an obvious gap in the fossil record. However, research in Pakistan and elsewhere have found the critical fossils to fill a substantial portion of this gap. Among the ancestors or close relatives to the ancestors of Basilosaurus and modern whales are: 1. Rodhocetus kasrani - Eocene (Gingerich et al. 1994)
2. Pakicetus - latest Early Eocene (Gingerich et al. 1983, Thewissen et al. 1993)
3. Ambulocetus natans - Early to Middle Eocene (Thewissen 1994)
4. Indocetus ramani - earliest Middle Eocene (Gingerich et al. 1993)
Sorry to "hear" that you are under the weather. I pray you feel better.
My point was to indicate a reason why someone might reject fossils arranged in a sequence due to the way the bones looked. My link presented "unmistakable" characteristics linking the Basilosaurus with the Mesonychus in a chain leading somewhat to the modern whales.(Basilosaurus evidently was excluded from leading to modern whales for some reason). The mesonychus has now been just about eliminated from this chain. What happened to all of the evidence? You can see the problems with the bones. The bones, even with the ankle that "killed" the mesonychus, do not place the alleged grandaddy of the whales close to the hippo. The whole point of this being that, placing bones in a sequence is evidence more of the thoughts of the person doing the placing than the relationships between the bones.
Yup, you cannot win against someone who is telling the truth.
The news was not that they had discovered retroviruses. The news was that they discovered totally new retroviruses. There are many retroviruses so they had to check to see if these were new by comparing them to the ones in chimps. If they had just been slightly changed it would not be news. That's why the headline the article claims 'startling news'. As I said, regardless of whether evolutionists think of themselves as little better than pond scum, we are unique.
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.