Posted on 08/07/2007 9:30:37 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
RIVERSIDE, Calif. – A research team, including UC Riverside biologists, has found experimental evidence that supports a controversial theory of genetic conflict in the reproduction of those animals that support their developing offspring through a placenta.
The conflict has been likened to a “battle of the sexes” or an “arms race” at the molecular level between mothers and fathers. At stake: the fetus’s growth rate and how much that costs the nutrient-supplying mother.
The new research supports the idea of a genetic “arms race” going on between a live-bearing mother and her offspring, assisted by the growth-promoting genes of the father...
(Excerpt) Read more at eurekalert.org ...
The gist of the story is that some placental minnows had higher levels of a gene called insulin-like growth factor two (IGF2). “The researchers found that the biggest genetic changes were in those species of the minnows that had developed placentas, supporting the Darwinian theory of natural selection,” the article claimed.
The researchers from UC Riverside believe that the male and female compete for control of the offspring. The male wants “fast fetal growth, so that his offspring will be the hardiest, best survivors and the ones who demand the most of the mother’s placental nutrients,” while the female gives all her offspring equal maternal care (i.e., equal levels of the growth hormone), “so that her nutrients will be available to support her and the offspring from all her matings.”
You have to laugh at the lengths the Darwinists will go to in trying to prop up Charlie’s idol. They did not see these fish evolve. They admitted that “The placenta is a complex organ of maternal and fetal tissues that nourishes the developing fetus in the uterus,” but did not explain how this complexity arose; they only found differing levels of one growth hormone. They admitted that their theory of genetic conflict is controversial. And they committed the usual grievous sin of the Darwinists, personifying poor little fish that don’t know their right fin from their left with goal-oriented actions and human patterns of conflict. This was not evolution in action. The only thing in action was the Darwin fogma machine (05/14/2007).
FULL ENTRY:
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200708.htm#20070803a
ping
You don't understand the science, so you have to trust that the creationist websites you crib from do. (They don't.)
I trust both sides. I trust the Darwiniacs to make continual fools of themselves, and I trust that Creation Scientists will be faithful to point it out. It’s pure comedy.
Why is there no Creationist representation in the biotech/pharmaceutical industry?
Every new drug, cell line, animal model, grant proposal, research study- all of them, at one point or another, describe their mechanism in the context of evolution.
Not talking about government or universities — this is private industry where billions are to be made (and just as many lives potentially affected) by products derived from capital investments.
None of which are ever justified in writing, seminars, or other presentation using Creationist principles.
Any guess why?
The theory of macroevolution is itself constantly evolving in conflicting directions, often at the same time. Some call it science, but many honest people better credentialled than you or I call it something else.
==Every new drug, cell line, animal model, grant proposal, research study- all of them, at one point or another, describe their mechanism in the context of evolution.
Pure BS.
“The biomedical sciences have flourished because they are experimental and have direct practical applications. But their success is based on a profound lack of interest in the question of how the organisms we study were formed. As long as we can fix the machines, we do not care how they were designed—and many rest content with the idea of a supernatural Designer. Evolution requires an interest in origins, and an acceptance of the different techniques needed to study them, which is simply not shared by many biologists.”
Bowler, Peter J., “The Status of Evolutionism Examined,” review of Monad to Man by Michael Ruse (Harvard University Press, 1996, 596 pp.), American Scientist, vol. 85 (May/June 1997), pp. 274-275. Bowler is on the faculty in History and Philosophy of Science, The Queen’s University, Belfast.
p. 274
“Ruse is a philosopher who wants to use history as a means of assessing the theory’s status as scientific knowledge. He asks why so many (and not just the creationists) remain skeptical of the theory’s scientific credentials. The answer, he argues, is that evolutionism has always been linked to a nonscientific value system based on the idea of progress.”
—Bowler, Peter J., “The Status of Evolutionism Examined,” review of Monad to Man by Michael Ruse (Harvard University Press, 1996, 596 pp.), American Scientist, vol. 85 (May/June 1997), pp. 274-275. Bowler is on the faculty in History and Philosophy of Science, The Queen’s University, Belfast.
I’m sorry, if you think evolution has much to do with drug research, other than susceptible bacteria being selected out of antibiotic-rich environments in favor of preexisting strains of immune bacteria, then you are deluded.
Evolution does not have to do with any material accomplishment of technology or medicine, because evolution has no predictive power.
That’s a funny little quote. Go get a job in research with it.
Make sure you place it in your cover letter, or better, scrawl it into your lab notes for reference at review time — right before you are fired for not producing anything.
It’s easier to take things on blind faith, and to ignore scientific data, when one simply regurgitates the party line set forth by the Creationist propoganda mills. Don’t let it get to you, Coyote...
One of your problems, and that of youre fellows, is you have no concept of what constitutes scientific evidence. Consequently, not only do you look silly to we who do understand, but you miss chances for legitimate criticisms. There is a deficiency in the analysis (or at least the reporting of it), but you’ll never figure it out.
Don’t tell me- tell the industries that strictly adhere to evolution in their publications and literature.
Tell them how they are wrong and could be doing better with Creationist views instead of evolutionist dogma.
==Go get a job in research with it...Make sure you place it in your cover letter, or better, scrawl it into your lab notes for reference at review time
Now we get to the heart of the matter. The Church of Darwin has managed to put a stranglehold on the IDEOLOGY of science. Any scientist who openly deviates from the party line is drummed out of the profession.
==One of your problems, and that of youre fellows, is you have no concept of what constitutes scientific evidence.
Sure I do, that’s why I’m busy refuting the myth of Darwinian evolution.
the same is true with global warming
==the same is true with global warming
Very true...and as usual, it is Darwinists leading the charge on global warming hysteria.
Did the new strains of Multi-Drug Resistant Tuberculosis evolve, or were they newly created? They didn't exist before, so I think it's one or the other.
Yes and the language and tactics used by the global warming advocates is very very similar. Deny evolution or global warming and you are compared to a flat earther.
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.