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 ...
allmendream,
“The predictive power of evolutionary theory gives the right answer. How about creationism or ID? Any guesses?”
Oh really? Do you even know the correct word for this type of science?
It’s genetics NOT evolution.
Are you a geneticist? or do you just portray one on tv...
I highly doubt it since you are trying to ram evolution through the narrow window of significance and doing it very poorly.
coyman,
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”
Joseph Goebbels
“A lie told often enough becomes truth”
Vladimir Lenin
Indeed, indeed... I hope you take this to heart coyman because you are so close to the truth with these quotes relating to evolution that it may indeed bite you on your arse.
What is your relevant background?
What theory would you use to make a prediction of the various sizes of Lygers or Tigons?
The genetic difference does account for the difference, but what theory can be used to ACCURATELY PREDICT the genetic difference in numerous animals all based upon the relative polyandrous sexual habits of the animal?
The genetic difference is a fact. Evolution is the theory that explains the fact, and can be used to accurately predict the difference of reciprocal crossbreeds of nearly related species.
So what is your prediction, and what theory helped you to make the prediction?
Notice how the pro-evolution supporters try and try to get us to prove negatives, try to ram significance into developing drugs and looking for oil, etc.
No proof, never was.
I am not against science or even their pursuing evolution as long as they sincerely look for truth, but i suspect in these days it is getting so politicized and not even being allowed to be given the chance to be challenged.
Science deals in evidence, not proof.
And there is overwhelming evidence for the theory of evolution.
Say wha? They don't believe anybody less than a Doctor of Something is sentient, if they were honest about it.
But I have. The problem is you haven't the wit to understand it.
There you go again, projecting your inadequacies on others. You base your knowledge of the distant past on faith and trust, scienctists do not. Science aims for and achieves understanding based on interpretation of evidence using the scientific method.
People who actually do the science you criticize understand why theories you hate (evolution, cosmology, geology, that HIV causes AIDS, etc.) understand why they are correct. If you tried to actually learn from those who better understood these phenomena rather than criticize their theories, you might, too.
But, I guess reinforcing your own discredited beliefs from the pseudo-scientific salad bars known as creationist websites is much easier, so I won't hold my breath.
allmendream,
molecular biologist? I doubt it. Even if that were true i am so unimpressed with your examples thus far that I would think that you are probably relegated to sweeping floors at the lab than be trusted with any reasonable type of research... IMHO after seeing your logic on display here.
And yet you did not know the correct name for genetics?
Instead you try to give significance of the predictive nature of lygers or tigons to evolution instead of genetics?
Evolutions has nothing to do with determining a thing... although I know you wish it did.
“The genetic difference does account for the difference, but what theory can be used to ACCURATELY PREDICT the genetic difference in numerous animals all based upon the relative polyandrous sexual habits of the animal?”
NOPE not a ONE.
If you had added wit to this discussion I would have noticed...
Or can you answer it?
Which would be bigger? A Lyger or a Tigon? What theory would help you predict this.
Maybe these guys just sweep up the floor of the lab as well. They know the answer.
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~wadh1730/The%20Evolution%20of%20Genomic%20Imprinting.doc
Christ loves you......
Coyman,
I know you believe this with all of your faith, but you have no proof and what “proof” exists is not allowed to be challenged by honest individuals.
Evolution is akin to the church of Scientology.
Challenge it and be silenced or drowned out by its acolytes.
I merely stated what I thought about your claim.
It may be true, but I am unimpressed. I do not hate you neither did I “attack you”...
I just equated what you have presented as logic to what job you would probably have in the lab if it were true.
If what you say is true...perhaps a job as a politician rather than a priest for a false religion would be more to your liking.
I’m counting a reciprocal cross between Tigers and Lyons, between two strains of mice with different mating habits, and now minnows.
That is three and counting. All accurately predicted based upon evolution. Genetics wouldn’t PREDICT it, it could account for it, but not predict it.
So do you have an answer? If the actions of the male of the species are effectively countered by the female of the species, why would they be designed to show the ‘tug of war’ implicit in this evolutionary struggle of males to try to ensure the size and fecundity of THEIR offspring at the expense of their rivals offspring within the same womb?
allmendream,
You may keep throwing that question at me all day... but the fact is that evolution cannot and will not answer that question.
Evolutions does not account for any answers period.
That's sad, you don't even remember what you said.
I didn’t bring up my qualifications to try an ‘appeal to authority’. You asked and I answered truthfully. I avoid stating my credentials because scientific debate is settled (or should be) on the strength of data not the credentials of the person proffering it.
So enough of the run-around. Do you have an answer or a theory as to why more polyandrous species would have stronger male signals for placental growth?
I told you in a previous post that science deals in evidence, not proof. The evidence for the theory of evolution is overwhelming.
If there is evidence to the contrary, present it. But don't present religious belief and claim it is scientific evidence. Scripture and revelation play no role in scientific investigations.
Evolution is akin to the church of Scientology.
Sorry, that's a flat-out lie. You do no credit to your argument by cranking up those whoppers.
edsheppa,
kinda early for you to be hitting the sauce isn’t it? ;)
Evolution does a great job predicting the relative male signal for placental growth based upon the polyandrous mating habits of the species.
Lions and Tigers, Mice, Minnows. All predicted, all accurate.
May you find the wisdom you seek my brother in Christ.
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.