Easy?! ...And all this time I was under the impression that some genetic traits were recessive. That whole "you'll be bald if your maternal uncle was bald" thing must be out of date...
Posted on 01/22/2005 7:38:12 AM PST by PatrickHenry
That's easy to answer. The original single individual does not have the trait. After many generations, some of the descendents do have the trait. It is easy to demonstrate that the colony starts with one individual. It is easy to demonstrate that the resulting colony has variation.
"...Yes, it is bizarre, and their "faith" is much more like science than it is faith...."
I agree. I had not thought about that extension of what I said, but it certainly does follow.
Proof -- if only you weren't so blind! -- that a miracle happened in your petri dish.
</creationism mode>
Locusts have six legs, dammit! This passage implies they have only four.
From the website:
"You may eat the following: locusts of every variety; all varieties of bald locust; crickets of every variety; and all varieties of grasshopper, but all other winged swarming things that have four legs shall be an abomination for you. Lev. 11: 22-23......"
Not to be picky, but grasshoppers, crickets and locusts, have six legs, making the word "other" possibly incorrect. An elaboration I found in my King James allows any hopping insect which would include leafhoppers and such.
Interpretation is absolutely required for this to make sense.
Same goes for ferns, mosses, mushrooms, slimemolds and bacteria. Not listed in Creation, even though the first three would have been obvious to people.
I am certain G-d's word is inerrant. I'm not at all sure the people who wrote it down were.
Umm..yes, you are correct that procedure would work.
Are you likely to volunteer? ;->
Sorry, I was busily typing when you had gotten there first and better.
Great minds go to Hell in the same handbasket, evidently...
Easy?! ...And all this time I was under the impression that some genetic traits were recessive. That whole "you'll be bald if your maternal uncle was bald" thing must be out of date...
Explain to us how recessive traits work in bacteria.
I think you are a little recessive when it comes to providing the results (probabilities) of your mathematical calculation.
Ah yes ... it's a high fly ball ... over center field ... easy out.
Don't patronize me, especially with respectable examples that are about 1000 intellectual miles from Darwinism.
Are Margaret Meade and Alfred Kinsey are in your pantheon of "scientists" too?
No doubt anguish is one smart Swede but he is wrong on the "Constitution being apllied to the states" as a general statement and wrong in this particular case as are you. All state constitutions enumerated speech and religion rights prior to 20th Century incorporation of certain of the BOR's to the states.
The 14A is a club used by federal courts to put their noses in where they don't belong and anti-thetical in that regard to the original intent of the founders.
The anti federalists feared an overly strong central government lording iver the states and they were exactly right. Nothing in the Constitution, the 14A, the 1A or Constitutional jurisprudence prohibits an acknowldgement of a Creator. Not that the CC BOEd even metnioned such.
What the judge accomplishes, and you seemingly support, is a further poisoning of the well and stoking the flames of the culture war. Culture wars persist because unelected judges make rulings such as these and use the power of the fedgov to enforce them. Issues such as this are best left to be debated in the public square of the localities and states. The remedies are simple; elections, recalls or voting with your feet.
You can have a Constitutional Republic or you can have oligarchy. One leads to freedom, the other to fascism.
And this judge will be overturned. His holding and justification for same is inept. jwalsh, you may not agree with the SCOTUS rulings but Anguish and Narby did provide you with the judicial realities of the situation.
Do like I do and no one will get hurt. Consider only the raw scientific data and spit out the bones of interpretation. We all have fully functioning brains.
Post a link to the original article. Once it goes through the filter of a creationist site, the result is the exact opposite of what was originally published. Like I said, I've seen what creationist sites do with quotes, why should I trust them with articles?
Recessive traits come to the fore in sexually-reproducing critters. Bacteria ain't them.
The dominant-recessive thing? That's for sexual species with specific X and Y sex chromosomes.
Bacteria typically have one ring-shaped chromosome, one strand of DNA, one copy of any gene at a given locus, and damn little "junk" to slow down reproduction. Hello? They reproduce asexually without any recombination of mama and papa genes.
People have been trying to tell you for years now that your dumb-butt strawman models are biologically misinformed. If you had any integrity, you would admit that now.
But if you had any integrity, you wouldn't be Southack.
Was I too subtle?
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.