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 ...
==Try some real science books (like biology textbooks) and museums (like the Smithsonian Natural History Museum), in lieu of religious propaganda.
I figured you were running on empty, this just proves it. When you finally piece together a coherent scientific argument for common descent, be sure to drop me a line. But don’t hold your breath! LOL
Evolution predicts that polyandrous species will have stronger male signals for placental growth. This is borne out by the article under discussion and also in several other examples. Trying to make me the subject, and abject denial will not give you the answer. Try to find either a contrary example, or a different theory under which this makes sense. You can do neither. THAT is why the only scientific theory of evolution is natural selection. Nobody can come up with anything else that explains all the facts.
Still no answer?
Do you think the authors of...
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~wadh1730/The%20Evolution%20of%20Genomic%20Imprinting.doc
also are relegated to sweeping up the lab floors? They are advancing the same argument that I am.
I guess you know about as much about Science as you do about History.
Why is it that ERV’s that are common in some human populations but not in all humans have reverse transcriptase genes that are nearly perfect?
Why is it that ERV’s that are shared between all humans but not shared by chimpanzee’s are not as perfectly preserved as ones that are common among all apes?
Why is the Vitamin C synthase gene broken in the exact same place in humans and apes? Why would an animal be designed with a broken Vitamin C synthase gene in the first place, and what theory could explain the fact that they are broken in the same place.
All these facts are consistent with common descent. I have no idea how they could be explained rationally by design, but I await your insight. (but probably not).
I think we need better science education in our public skrewels....
See, that's what you just don't get. Scientific theories are based on huge banks of scientific evidence. There's no single "magic bullet" that proves evolution, or any other theory. I have no desire to debate you on solidly established scientific theories that span multiple disciplines. Science has done an excellent job of piecing together evidence to form coherent theories, and it's not my job (or anyone else's) to spend time teaching them to you. The work's already been done - the onus is on you to understand it, and if, after that happens, you have the inclination to challenge aspects of a theory, by all means, that's what peer review is for. Until then, you are impugned by your lack of credibility, and you'll have to remain in the dark as to what scientists understand about evolution, but that's through your own choosing.
I understand enough to know the Darwinian ToE has been thoroughly refuted. And since you’re not game, I guess we’ll just have to leave it at that.
I’ll have to do a little research before I get back to you. BTW, do you have any sources the same?
I find it strange that The almighty, all powerful, everlasting God would create the universe ... and then spend the rest of his time sitting on his ass for all eternity doing nothing.
Wow, talk about a ridiculous level of arrogance. How many propaganda-laden websites did you have to peruse on your lunch break to outsmart 150 years of work by thousands of well-trained scientists?
And since you’re not game, I guess we’ll just have to leave it at that.
I certainly won't debate on your terms. Science has better methods of reaching the truth than retreading waters under the bridge one drop at a time. In the mean time, I'm sure the Smithsonian Institute and Journal Nature would love to hear that GodGunsGuts on FR has caught the errors made by multiple discplines ranging across all of modern science.
He's watching you. That takes all his energy.
Just google ‘ERV common descent’ and you will have numerous sites to chose from, even the creationist ones you seem enamored of. Please cut and paste to your hearts content. :)
Also try ‘vitamin C synthase pseudogene’.
I would really like a good explanation for why something would be designed with a pseudogene in the first place, let alone why it would be broken in the same location among closely related species.
God created us from the ‘dust of the ground’; i.e. creatures too small to see. Maybe he thought that telling us we came from such small and lowly origins would preclude us getting delusions of grandeur (small chance of that!). Yet some would say that the ape is even more lowly than ‘dust’. A simplistic explanation of the allegory would be magical, the scientific explanation is simply MIRACULOUS!
Glad you are interested. Even if you still line up on the opposite side of the chess board, it cannot help but improve your game! Good luck “you have taken your first step into a much larger world”.
==Wow, talk about a ridiculous level of arrogance. How many propaganda-laden websites did you have to peruse on your lunch break to outsmart 150 years of work by thousands of well-trained scientists?
Not many. In order for a scientific theory to be successful it must begin with the proper preliminary assumptions. When it comes to Darwin’s ToE, the preliminary assumptions were wrong, thus it has been a 150 year waste of time.
==I certainly won’t debate on your terms. Science has better methods of reaching the truth than retreading waters under the bridge one drop at a time. In the mean time, I’m sure the Smithsonian Institute and Journal Nature would love to hear that GodGunsGuts on FR has caught the errors made by multiple discplines ranging across all of modern science.
I am relying on the work of scientists just like you. If you don’t want to debate on my terms, then let’s debate on yours. But let’s narrow it down. Pick out one thing from your top five evidences for evolution and let’s go from there. Although, I must warn you, as you begin to look long and hard for evidence, you might find yourself agreeing with the following:
“Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence.”
—D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (New York: Pantheon Books, 1983), p. 197.
“Evolution, at least in the sense that Darwin speaks of it, cannot be detected within the lifetime of a single observer.”
—David Kits, “Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory,” Evolution (vol. 28; September 1974), p. 466.
“Darwin never really did discuss the origin of species in his On the Origin of Species.”
—In Mayr’s book Systematics and the Origin of Species (1942), as cited by a prominent modern evolutionist, Niles Eldredge, in his book, Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1985), p. 33.
“No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has gotten near it. . . .”
—Colin Patterson, “Cladistics.” Interview on BBC, March 4, 1982. Dr. Patterson is the senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History.
“Evolution is . . . troubled from within by the troubling complexities of genetic and developmental mechanisms and new questions about the central mystery—speciation itself.”
—Keith S. Thompson, “The Meanings of Evolution,” American Scientist (vol. 70, September/October 1982), p. 529
“The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition. . . .”
—Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process (San Francisco: W.M. Freeman and Co., 1979), p. 39.
“As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record, persist for some millions of years virtually unchanged, only to disappear abruptly. . . .”
—Tom Kemp, “A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record,” New Scientist (Vol. 108; December 5, 1985), p. 67. Dr. Kemp is Curator of the University Museum at Oxford University.
“In any case, no real evolutionist . . . uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation. . . .”
—Mark Ridley, “Who Doubts Evolution?” New Scientist (vol. 90; June 25, 1981), p. 831. Dr. Ridley is Professor of Zoology at Oxford University.
“The fossil record of evolution is amenable to a wide variety of models ranging from completely deterministic to completely stochastic.”
—David M. Raup, “Probabilistic Models in Evolutionary Biology” American Scientist (vol. 166. January/February 1977), p. 57.
“I regard the failure to find a clear “vector of progress” in life’s history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record. . . . we have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really display it.”
—Stephen Jay Gould, “The Ediacaran Experiment,” Natural History (vol. 93; February 1984), p. 23. Dr. Gould, Professor of Geology at Harvard, is arguably the nation’s most prominent modern evolutionist.
“And this poses something of a problem: If we date the rocks by their fossils, how can we then turn around and talk about patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record?”
—Niles Eldredge, op. cit., p. 52.
“A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in the terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn’t it?”
—Tom Kemp, op. cit., p. 66.
“How can the forces of biological development and the forces of physical degeneration be operating at cross purposes? It would take, of course, a far greater mind than mine even to attempt to penetrate this riddle. I can only pose the question. . . .”
—Sydney Harris, “Second Law of Thermodynamics.” This nationally syndicated column appeared in the San Francisco Examiner on January 27, 1984.
“. . . the quantity of entropy generated locally cannot be negative irrespective of whether the system is isolated or not.”
—Arnold Sommerfeld, Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics (New York: Academic Press, 1956), p. 155.
“Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems.”
—John Ross, Letter-to-the-Editor, Chemical and Engineering News (July 7, 1980), p. 40. Ross is at Harvard University.
“It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced.
—Sir Gavin de Beer, Homology, an Unsolved Problem (London: Oxford University Press, 1971), p. 15. Sir Gavin is a leading European evolutionist.
The really significant finding that comes to light from comparing the proteins’ amino acid sequences is that it is impossible to arrange them in any sort of an evolutionary series.”
—Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (London: Burnett Books, 1985), p. 289. Denton is a research microbiologist in Australia.
“. . . the theory of recapitulation . . . should be defunct today.”
—Stephen Jay Gould, “Dr. Down’s Syndrome,” Natural History (April 1980), p. 144.
“An analysis of the difficulties in unambiguously identifying functionless structures . . . leads to the conclusion that “vestigial organs” provide no evidence for evolutionary theory.”
—S.R. Scadding, “Do `Vestigial Organs’ Provide Evidence for Evolution?” Evolutionary Theory (vol. 5, May 1981), p. 173.
==I find it strange that The almighty, all powerful, everlasting God would create the universe ... and then spend the rest of his time sitting on his ass for all eternity doing nothing.
Your insights go way above my paygrade. Would you care to back that up? That is, give positive evidence to back up your assertion.
Meatballs R'Us
No one ever built a monument to honor a critic. These guys are doing the REAL work of understanding nature, you’re only an arm chair critic.
Why is it that ERV’s that are shared between all humans but not shared by chimpanzee’s are -MORE- preserved in the sequence of their reverse transcriptase genes than ERV’s that are common among all apes?
My apologies if the mistake caused any confusion.
Righhht. Scientists studying evolution (by which you also mean cosmology and geology) are wasting their time. If only they knew what GodGunsGuts knew.
I am relying on the work of scientists just like you. If you don’t want to debate on my terms, then let’s debate on yours. But let’s narrow it down. Pick out one thing from your top five evidences for evolution and let’s go from there.
Like me? I'm not an evolutionary biologist. I suggest you take up the numerous details with them and make a journal submission, if you're so well-versed in the theory. You still don't get it. Top five evidences for evolution? Try the top five thousand, and you're still just scratching the surface. Science is an iterative body of work. Five evidences do not a good theory make. If you want to topple a scientific paradigm, you have a lot more work to do than that.
The rest of your post is just a quote mine salad. Science isn't made or broken by citing a few random quotes taken out of context.
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.