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.)
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?
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.
I used to raise guppies.
I studied them closely and 86% of them were right-finned.
They did not know it though.
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.
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.
You have to laugh at a Creationist who buys into a literal meaning of 66 books, gospels and letters that recognize a flat eath ....