Posted on 08/10/2004 3:57:16 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Slime!
Interesting page I found on talk reason:
"The Art of ID Stuntmen"
http://www.talkreason.org/index.cfm?category=13
Indeed, very interesting. Although I read the older articles two months ago, I really engjoyed reading them again, especially "More about "heresy" in science" by Mark Perakh ;)
Oh? Do we hear about the results which challenge RMNS in our schools? This thread shows that the experiments keep indicating the same problems indicated in the article.
Within a few years, evidence accumulated for non-teleological models of mutation. By 1998, essentially everyone in the field, including Cairns and his closest collaborators, agreed that the original observation did not reflect "directed" mutations, which by that time had been re-baptized with the less loaded term "adaptive mutations" [5, 6]. Nevertheless, several interesting features of bacterial biology had been discovered in the process. One alternative model for the observations proposes that starved bacteria enter a "hypermutable" state , either by virtue of a specific genetic "rescue" program, or as a result of breakdown of normal cellular control mechanisms [7]. In this state, high levels of mutations are introduced throughout the bacterial genome, but selection for specific mutants makes it appear as if the environmental conditions preferentially targeted mutations to the selected gene. Importantly, this mechanism has relevance for the onset of bacterial resistance to antibiotic drugs, and possibly to certain cellular states involved in cancer development [5]. In another novel mechanism which has been observed, a multiplication of the copies of the crippled gene ("amplification") is first favorably selected because it leads to a small but detectable increase in its product's minimal activity [8]. This massive gene amplification makes for better chances of mutation, and when these occur the extra gene copies become a burden, and are eliminated by selection. The final result is the appearance of highly targeted mutations. Research on all these mechanisms is actively ongoing [9].[emphasis mine]
See #385
Eastern Kansas freeper here. I prefer the term, "intelligent design." I think it can include some elements of the theory of evolution. The problem is that some people treat evolution like a religion... and refuse to allow any discussion or any concept of outside force... it's all just chaos theory. I consider myself somewhat well educated. I've had college level biology, advanced biology, chemistry and physiology as well as a law degree. My husband has a bacholors in zoology. We are both perfectly comfortable with the current composition of the state board of education. We are what we are. The rest of the world can just buzz off if they don't like it.
Please be a bit more specific. As in:
Training:
Experience:
Training:
Thanks.
The best example I could give would be the CV's of some of the posters to the thread: RWP, PH, Physicist, etc. I believe RWP's (Right Wing Professor) CV is part of this home page.
I just ran across this. Thought your ping list might find it funny.
http://www.mchawking.com/
OK here is a good start....
Evidence from landscape formation
Landscape evolution
Evidence from the three sisters rock formation in Austrailia.
Devil’s Tower
Fluidization Pipes
And of course, evidence from the Grand Canyon.
Evidence from the gaps in the geologic columns.
They don’t show the kind of evidence of erosion that one would expect.
Gaps in Geologic column
Evidence of huge water catastrophies found on all continents.
Evolutionists now admit that catastrophies are common in the fossil record, but view these as local although catastrophic events. Creationists view them as having a common origin.
South Africa
Rapid Burial of Dinosaurs
More on Dinosaur burial grounds
Increased secular recognition of major catastrophies
MEGABRECCIAS: EVIDENCE FOR CATASTROPHISM
Evidence from the fossil record.
The following article is very technical and discusses evidence from the fossil record which supports the flood as well as evidence that appears problematic for the flood.
Fossil record
Evidence from the genealogy in Genesis that lists the immediate descendant’s of Noah’s sons.
An amazing amount of man’s history can be traced back to Noah’s sons through secular writings. The first line is a short article, the second link is an online book.
Noahic Geaneology
Nahoic Geaneaology II
Evidence from global flood stories. Almost every culture remembers the flood.
Flood Stories
Evidence from speciation patterns and genetics indicating a radiation outward from the middle east.
I've seem other research supporting this concept, including some quite extensive and examining numerous species as well as species that are hard to explain.
Parrots
Population statistics favor creation over evolution.
It is true that fossil seashells are found on most mountaintops. Clams and crushed shells were found at the top of Mt. Everest. Both Evolutionists and Creationists agree that most mountains are made of sedimentary rock which was formed in water and bears marine fossils.
Evolution accounts for this through millions of years of sea floor seduction and plate tectonics.
Creationists look to the scriptures and find:
Psalm 104:5-9 “You clothed the earth with floods of water, water that covered even the mountains. At the sound of your rebuke, the water fled; at the sound of your thunder it fled away. Mountains rose and valleys sank to the levels you decreed. Then you set a firm boundary for the seas, so they would never again cover the earth.”
Therefore, we don't know when we look at a mountain today if it existed prior to the flood or was created during the flood.
What I find interesting is that the Biblical model existed long before we knew to ask "Why are there clams and shells at the top of Mt. Everest?"
What's more, the Bible also clearly predicted the rise of Uniformists. And that belief in uniformity would cause people to reject knowledge of the flood and creation and accept fables instead. How ironic that the uniformists now label the Bible as myth.
2 Peter 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
I have never understood how religion and science must be at odds with each other. Creationism does not belong in a science class. It belongs in a theology class. And I don't understand what these creationists are so scared of...science is not a faith, it is by its very nature the study of uncertainty.
It's true that Americans outside the GOP stereotype us all based on the creationists, and it hurts our political cause.
Creationists are really just hung up on the "man evolved from other primates" issue. This just doesn't sit well with them. The same science that discovered that humans and chimps share 98% common DNA, also discovered the human genome, and has led to many of the technologies and treatments in modern medicine.
That problem can be solved by erecting a big cross in front of the Kansas City Kansan and burn it.
I appreciate the comment, but we're trying to lie low regarding the evolution/creationism debate until after the election. Too distracting. We'll all have more to say, and more threads to post, after Bush is re-elected.
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.