Posted on 01/23/2005 1:11:01 AM PST by rdb3
The differential in mortality rates without malaria present is not too pertinent to the discussion. The graph of mortality in malarial areas showed a better survival rate among hybrid sickle cell allele genotypes.
This difference, however small, will result in increase presence of the sickle cell allele in the population over time. This is evolution.
Science has not yet substantiated the reasonable notion that the variety of species present in the world today is a result of billions of years of change in allele frequencies. For that reason, evolution attains only to the level of "reasonable notion," or "philosophy." It does not attain to the level of "fact" as you assert. It certainly does not belong in any classroom except those where pontification is one's professional aim, not unlike that of certain politicians.
From the article: This distribution is determined by the occurrence of the sickle cell mutation and its selection by falciparum malaria.
Andrew: "Then why is the Hybrid frequency only 15-25% in a malarial area?"
Only 15-25%?!!!! That is a very high incidence of an otherwise deleterious gene. The article explains that falciparum malaria selects (makes more prevalent) for people that are more immune to malaria. The incidence of malaria is proportional and tandem to the incidence of sickle cell.
If we had rates approaching 25% sickle cell here in America, it would be considered a huge public health crisis.
That is pure nonsense, and I hope you know it.
Oh, so now you agree with me. Remember, you are arguing that it is a beneficial gene when compared to the normal allele in the malarial regions. In the malarial regions it is the normal allele that is deleterious.
Let us look beyond your projection mechanism...Did you vote for GW Bush?
You have used one of Hitler's speeches to illustrate Hitler's alleged passion for Christianity, when his private documents and communications reflect his contempt for Christianity. Hitler was notorious for using Darwinian/Marxist philosophy -- see "master race." c
Your logic is very simple-minded...According to your logic, the above video proves Clinton was a Christian because he was carrying a Bible and walking with the "Holy-man" Tony Campolo (apostate though he may be)...Hitler and Clinton's actions betray their respective deception, so to accept prima fascia speech's either made would be foolish at best...Lip service does not a Christian make, nor evolution prove.
Tch Tch, and you are a loving Christian?
Yep..."The Truth shall set you free."...alas...{/sigh}
You are too generous, the theory of evolution is demonstrably false as a philosophy because it has no practicable use...It is neither validated nor logical, its practitioners are often delusional or genocidal (or both).
If asked to phrase that one, I'd say that agenda freaks hate Christians and chiefly for that reason cling to evolution decades after evolution has been disproven.
Andrew, I don't agree with you. You do not understand the underlying principles involved here.
I have done by best to explain it to you. If you were in my class, you would receive an F.
Post some scientific evidence against evolution and I might continue discussion how wrong you are.
Ad hominem does not reach the level of a valid scientific objection.
Post some scientific evidence that "disproves" evolution.
[Did you know that using the word disproves or proof pretty much assures you of not being taken seriously by scientists? It shows a complete ignorance of scientific method.]
I've posted the thing a bout fruit flies here before and I haven't seen a rational argument proposed against it.
That one to me suffices by itself, being an absolute laboratory test of the entire theory (of evolution), but there're lots of others.
There are animals and animal features which could not plausibly evolve, since they are massively complex and would be useless in anything but the finished stage. The bombardier beetle is one such; baleen is another; wings are another.
Or take snakes for instance. The first step in evolving into snakehood would be being born/mutated as a quadraplegic and, starting from there, you'd have to somehow or other learn how to slither and kill prey in the fifteen minutes you'd have before the first predator which came along ate YOU.
I mean, none of this crap works from a standpoint of simple logic.
We have posted several articles that show speciation.
It is your misunderstanding of evolution that keeps you from realizing the significance that when speciation occurs, it is evolution. You won't see jumps from one Genus (or above). That's just not how it works.
So, instead of misunderstanding, do you have any scientific evidence that refutes evolution? [I expect another ad hominem post about all scientists being homos]
A double standard?
You are projecting again. I accurately call God haters and Christophobes "God haters" and "Christophobes" because they engage in God hating and Christian fearing. That's not an attack against God haters and Christophobes, that is describing motive and an underlying agenda for the current venom towards those who subscribe to intelligent design.
Another way of putting it is: "Examining and drawing conclusions from the evidence." If we were to discuss taxation, or the best ski lodge, it would take a particularly antisocial clod to engage in the routine and apparently required lying, pandering, insults and hate speech typical of the left evolutionists/materialists. Now why is it required for evolutionists/materialists to single out Christians (not Jews, Muslims, secular critics of evolution et al) for all of your frustrations?
Number One, the Bible says that you folks will do exactly that. Number Two, history demonstrates that you folks will do exactly that. Number Three, the balance of posts by the materialists demonstrates that this is an unending pattern of behavior. We can look at your posts, and the variety of self-proclaimed atheistic theologians (there is an oxymoron for you) who feel completely qualified to describe and characterize a religion they know very little about and have every reason to ridicule.
When discussing origins, exactly how is the phrase "Junk Religion" supposed to be informative and constructive in a debate? "Junk Science" is appropriate because it is the type of so-called "science" that is implemented to muddy the waters concerning true origins. Global Warming has more basis in evidence than Oort Clouds, yet materialists say "science has proven it". Oh really? Absent any evidence, we have elevated speculation to fact? That is called "junk science".
So this bravo-sierra about "Ad Hominem does not reach the level of valid scientific objection" is nothing more than a cloud to hide the fact that your ilk's stock in trade is Ad Hominem and junk science. Accusing others of engaging in what you regularly do is called hypocrisy.
Get used to the label, it fits materialists like a glove.
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.