Posted on 07/24/2003 1:55:39 PM PDT by Mr.Atos
I was just lisening to Medved debating Creationism with Athiests on the air. I found it interesting that while Medved argued his side quite effectively from the standpoint of faith, his opponents resorted to condescension and beliitled him with statements like, "when it rains, is that God crying?" I was reminded of the best (at least most amusing)debate that I have ever heard on the subject of Creationism vs Evolution, albeit a fictional setting. It occurred on the show, Friends of all places between the characters Pheobe (The Hippy) and Ross (The Paleontologist). It went like this...
Pheebs: Okay...it's very faint, but I can still sense him in the building...GO INTO THE LIGHT MR. HECKLES!!
Ross: Whoa, whoa, whoa. What, uh, you don't believe in evolution? Pheebs: Nah. Not really. Ross: You don't believe in evolution? Pheebs: I don't know. It's just, ya know, monkeys, Darwin, ya know, it's a, it's a nice story. I just think it's a little too easy.
Ross: Uh, excuse me. Evolution is not for you to buy, Phoebe. Evolution is scientific fact. Like, like, the air we breathe, like gravity... Pheebs: Uh, okay, don't get me started on gravity.
Ross: You uh, you don't believe in gravity? Pheebs: Well, it's not so much that ya know, like I don't *believe* in it, ya know. It's just...I don't know. Lately I get the feeling that I'm not so much being pulled down, as I am being pushed.
Ross: How can you NOT BELIEVE in evolution? Pheebs: [shrugs] I unh-huh...Look at this funky shirt!!
Ross: Well, there ya go. Pheebs: Huh. So now, the REAL question is: who put those fossils there, and why...?
Ross: OPPOSABLE THUMBS!! Without evolution, how do YOU explain OPPOSABLE THUMBS?!? Pheebs: Maybe the overlords needed them to steer their spacecrafts!
Pheebs: Uh-oh! Scary Scientist Man!
Pheebs: Okay, Ross? Could you just open your mind like, *this* much?? Okay? Now wasn't there a time when the brightest minds in the world believed that the Earth was flat? And up until what, like, fifty years ago, you all thought the atom was the smallest thing, until you split it open, and this like, whole mess o' crap came out! Now, are you telling me that you are so unbelievably arrogant that you can't admit that there's a teeny, tiny possibility that you could be wrong about this?!?
Pheebs: I can't believe you caved. Ross: What? Pheebs: You just ABANDONED your whole belief system! I mean, before, I didn't agree with you, but at least I respected you. Ross: But uh.. Pheebs: Yeah...how...how are you gonna go in to work tomorrow? How...how are you gonna face the other science guys? How...how are you gonna face yourself? Oh! [Ross runs away dejected] Pheebs: That was fun. So who's hungry?
Some does, some has no apparent purpose at all, and is very unlikely to. (various repeating sections, pseudogenes, fossil viruses to name a few.)
One of those 'highly repeating sections' was the ALU sequences in over 10% of the human genome. They are needed for cell reproduction. They act as a zipper when a cell divides in two. That is why it is very dangerous to call anything we do not know 'useless'. The discovery of the control systems of genes is very difficult. The control regions can be very large as the following shows:
Correction of homozygous and heterozygous Small eye phenotypes has been achieved with a 420 kb human YAC containing the 25 kb PAX6 gene, and about 200 kb genomic flanking sequences on each side. The same YAC, truncated 7-10 kb downstream of the intact PAX6 gene failed to correct the homozygote lethality or eyeless phenotype, although the heterozygote phenotype was ameliorated (Schedl, 1996). We have generated transgenic mice with a shorter YAC, extending approximately 120 kb downstream of PAX6, approximately to the most distal aniridia breakpoint, and thereby about 80 kb shorter than the YAC which was shown to rescue the Smalleye phenotype. We show that this shorter YAC is unable to rescue the Smalleye phenotype in those transgenic mice, suggesting the presence of a regulatory control region more than 150 kb downstream of the PAX6 promoter(s), in the 80 kb region between the shorter and the longer YACs.
We have carried out a DNaseI hypersensitive sites analysis of that region using PAX6 expressing cell lines and a non-expressing cell line and have identified 8 hypersensitive sites spread out over a 25 kb region. We show that a fragment carrying a subset of these hypersensitive sites is able to direct the expression of a LacZ reporter gene in the eye and nasal epithelium of transgenic embryos. Through interspecies comparison we have identified another, conserved DNA element in this region, which does not form a hypersensitive site in the used cell lines, but directs LacZ expression in the lens, fore- and hindbrain of transgenic embryos. Taken together these results provide evidence for the presence of a complex regulatory control region at a large distance downstream of the PAX6 gene.
From: Analysis of Regulation in Pax-6
In English, what the above means is that 'there is a lot of regulating going on' outside of the gene itself and it is very hard to find exactly what does what.
Just because someone posts Harun Yahya and proselytizes for Islam does not make him a troll. Just because Mohammed may not be my cup of tea or yours and some of his followers have this obsession with flying planes into buildings does not mean we can call their supporters "trolls." We have an agreement now.
On the other hand, it is politically incorrect to stigmatize people who read Harun Yahya and the Koran. The usual socially correct behavior is to pretend they're inoffensive right up until we think they might have WMD.
His behavior not only violates the agreement, but violates any contention that his objection to the agreement involved any supposed horror on his part of name-calling or other uncivil behaviors. In his freepmails he chortles over the agreement as a sprung trap.
whutta complete maroon!These are the arguments by which the Hand of God in creation is revealed. Argumentum ad Stoogeam.I bet yer scratching your fleas wondering how the heck did things end up so I got YOU to sign an agreement to behave and I didn't!
The answer lies in who it was that changed the agreement into two... one that passed and one that didn't.nyuck yuck!
evos is dumb!
And there you have it, just as we suspected and have been saying for the last week or so.
Our suspicions are born out, and he admitted it in a freepmail.
How dumb can you get?
NYUCK, NYUCK!!
False.
Obviously, some people don't care about that.
Actually, the word "revolve" implies returning to place, which neither the earth nor the moon do. Their path is more of a wobbly line.
First of all, this is factually wrong, assuming that the trait is carried by only 40 percent of the population. Second, a 25 percent mortality rate is not diasterous. Prior to medical science it was common.
The great chain of being was ID. Some folks thought it was God's learning curve.
Reminds me of an old song:
"I ain't got no ... satis-TRACTION ..."
Disclosure of freepmails is a violation of FreeRepublic rules. In addition disclosure of private e-mails of any kind are a violation of all internet rules everywhere. You should know better.
In addition, if a subject is forbidden under the agreement, those who have signed on to it should tell anyone posting subjects forbidden under the agreement should be told calmly but firmly that such subjects are not a subject of discussion on the thread and those who signed on to the agreement should refuse to discuss the subject henceforth. To start saying that it is a subject not to be discussed after it has gone on for most of a day and hundreds of posts is not the way to deal with such matters.
What actually happened is fully documented between posts 800-999 on the drafting thread.
However, if any of the parties who signed on to this agreement believes this assertion to be true - then I strongly suggest we nullify the agreement, y'all appoint a new mediator and re-vote the agreement.
No willing party should ever doubt the integrity of what they signed nor shall I tolerate having my character besmirched.
First of all, this is factually wrong, assuming that the trait is carried by only 40 percent of the population. Second, a 25 percent mortality rate is not diasterous.
I was discussing if all would have it to survive malarial infection. Reason why all do not have it is obviously the high death rate. As to it being disastrous, no it would not be disastrous, but neither is malaria disastrous since groups without this trait do survive in malarial areas - without this high death toll.
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.