Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: exDemMom

There is extremely weak evidence in support of macro evolution. So the group think requires a strong dose of faith for its followers.


604 posted on 08/01/2005 8:29:57 PM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 591 | View Replies ]


To: plain talk
There is extremely weak evidence in support of macro evolution. So the group think requires a strong dose of faith for its followers.

Dr. Collins 'has the faith'!

"It is not just a human/mouse comparison one can do. Eric Green at the Genome Institute has looked at this same region in many other species and, in fact, you can find this same CAPZA2 gene in everything from chimps down to zebra fishes and a lot of things in between (see Figure 4). Notice the pattern. The chimpanzee is almost 100% identical to the human, except the chimp has a deletion just before exon 2 that we do not have. Otherwise the match-up, as in most cases of human and chimp comparison, is about 98.5% to 99%. You can see that the baboon is starting to diverge. The cat and the dog and the cow all look a lot alike, and again if you look at the CAPZA2 exons, you will see that every one of those species has a nice conserved little segment there. But as you get further away to rats, mouse, chicken, two different kinds of pufferfish and then a zebra fish, about the only thing you see is the protein encoding regions, while the rest of the scattered noise goes away. Again, this is a very compelling kind of pattern in terms of what one would expect from evolution."

608 posted on 08/01/2005 8:32:47 PM PDT by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 604 | View Replies ]

To: plain talk
There is extremely weak evidence in support of macro evolution. So the group think requires a strong dose of faith for its followers.

So you don't have an example of a scientist teaching some kind of faith as science. From the look of it, it does not appear you have actually attended a science class. As I said before, "macro evolution" is not a scientific term, and genuine scientists don't use it. The fact that anti-science creationists keep using that term means two things to me: 1) that the creation pushers who are making tons of money selling books and so forth are counting on the fact that most of their customers are scientifically illiterate, and 2) that while they are pushing creationism, they personally ABSOLUTELY ACCEPT the theory of evolution. Because, if you look at the term "micro evolution," again, not a scientific term, it not only embraces the tenets of evolutionary theory, but proposes that evolution proceeds at a lightning fast pace, far faster than evolutionary theory posits.

Oh, and I should say something about faith. I don't have faith in math and science. (Although I recommend periodic sacrifices to the gods of PCR, but that is another matter.) They are merely the disciplines I have learned in order to make myself marketable to employers, much like people learn carpentry or accounting and so forth. Faith is what I exercise when I, for instance, pray to God that the particularly fussy cell line I am growing right now works out for the experiments I have in mind.

804 posted on 08/02/2005 5:23:50 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 604 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson