The One, True Way!
Posted on 12/14/2004 7:14:55 AM PST by wkdaysoff
HARRISBURG, Pa. — The state American Civil Liberties Union (search) plans to file a federal lawsuit Tuesday against a Pennsylvania school district that is requiring students to learn about alternatives to the theory of evolution (search).
The ACLU said its lawsuit will be the first to challenge whether public schools should teach "intelligent design," which holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by some higher power....
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I r0x0red your b0x0rz. Pwn3d.
(Sorry, I'm much too old for typing like that, but it makes me smile, as I am juvenile at heart. And brain.)
600?
Funny how your link supports the "millions of years" view. Did you even read it?
Experimental error.
If true, then most freepers should just ignore these threads.
Do you boys know you have multi forum reputations as jerks?This statement, if true, does what to imply that our position is wrong?
Deals with the early origins of Eukaryotes. The idea that eukaryotic cells are chimeras is older than genomic analysis; Lynn Margulis proposed it in the sixties.
Here's a gene that was thought to be exclusive to vertebrates, but now is found in a few quite disparate creatures
Contrary to what you stated, his does not show 'the genetic makeup of different species do not show their evolutionary relationships as predicted.'. In fact, the paper found 31% sequence identity in the molluscan gene w.r.t Drosophila, and 43% w.r.t. the mammalian gene; just about what you'd expect comparing a highly conserved gene between 3 different phyla.
Did you read the paper? Because, if you had, you'd find this:
The high degree of sequence similarity throughout is consistent with the hypothesis that all three enzymes (Conus, Drosophila, and mammalian) have a common evolutionary origin.
Traditional phylogeny says that compound eyes formed once, but biochemically apparently it had to arise independently multiple times
Does traditional phylogeny say that? How odd. Because, for example, This page describes how compound eyes in ostracods are phylogenetically isolated, and therefore must have evolved independently, in agreement with molecular genetics. I've found other articles using traditional cladistic methods to analyze compound eyes in the insects, myriapods, and arthropods, that claim the eyues are polyphyletic. Your claim looks suspiciously like a straw man.
And the non-coding regions stay the same? Gosh
I suspect you haven't read even the abstracts of the links you posted. If you had, you'd have noticed this
Most, and possibly all, of these sequences are located in and around genes that act as developmental regulators....These highly conserved non-coding sequences are likely to form part of the genomic circuitry that uniquely defines vertebrate development.
Apparently chickens are pretty close to Turtles A quote from that article: "Given the great deal of support for much of the current pattern of vertebrate relationships, it is surprising how poorly molecular methods have fared in reconstructing the broad outline of vertebrate evolution. This is particularly worrying in the case of mitochondrial genome sequences, which are relatively large markers that have been thought of as ideal for phylogenetic work and are certainly very commonly used."
Again, quoted from the article you yourself linked to:
Reconciled tree analysis of a database of 118 vertebrate gene families supports a largely classical vertebrate phylogeny....Our phylogenies differ very little from traditional views of vertebrate relationships.
This paper actually says the exact opposite of what you claim. It says nuclear gene molecular genetics agree with traditional phylogenies. The difficulties they note (in a review of previous work) are with mitochondrial genes exclusively.
Bee social behaviors are completely independent of phylogenic trees (a little offtopic, but interesting)
Since social behavior is hardly an element in traditional phylogeny, this is indeed off topic. Next you'll be telling me that the red-color of cardinals and of scarlet macaws is not a reflection of their evolutionary relatedness. DOH!
But I'm not sure why you should draw attention to the off-topicness of the article in particular; not one of the articles you quoted supports your contention.
The point I was trying to make is that the age of the canyon and how it was formed are still being investigated.
ROTFLOL Balrog, that's as funny as you MOM post.
Thousands of insults served and still not banned. How *ever* do you do it? I see your buddy Shubi is outta here. That's a start.
Ok. Are you suggesting that, in the future, geologists may reduce that new estimate by a factor of 20?
Which creation website did you get your link from?
What atheist was your mentor?
Does that mean that next time you get a link from one of your creation websites, you will read it first?
Very occasionally. However, contrary to the assertions of creationist web sites, they know how to recognize multiple rings, and they can locate specific events - e.g. the eruption of Vesuvius - in tree ring evidence, giving a calibration against historical events.
See what I mean about common sense; you're deny what every child knows - that you can date a tree pretty well from its rings - in order to try to shore up a hopelessly unlikely theory of origins. The tree-rings can be calibrated independently from historical events, and by comparison with arctic ice cores; they can all be checked against 14C , potassium argon, and argon -argon dating. All of them give a consistent picture.
Noting that someone is "ignorant" is not necessarily an insult.
Truthâ is a good thing.
I see your buddy Shubi is outta here. That's a start.
What makes you think that your fellow Christian shubi is gone?
I think so. One problem with mitochondria is that there's no independent assortment of mitochondrial genes in a population, because there's no recombination. But I don't know of any persuasive evidence for horizontal gene transfer in the mitochondrial genome. But I'm pinging the great Ich, and Right Wing Nilla, both of whom might know better.
http://www.bookmasters.com/marktplc/rr01098.htm
Yes indeed, the Old Testament events actually took place in the middle ages! Jesus was born in 1053 AD! "Armed with logic & astronomy Anatoly Fomenko turns History into a rocket science".
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.