Posted on 08/17/2005 7:44:13 AM PDT by PApatriot1
Did you hear the news? Evolution is no longer a theory. It’s a fact! I know, I can’t believe it either. Wait, you haven’t heard about this breakthrough discovery? Well, you might want to check with Professor Colin Purrington, an evolutionary biologist who teaches at Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania. Professor Purrington says, “Evolution is a ‘theory’ like gravity is a ‘theory.’”
(Excerpt) Read more at humaneventsonline.com ...
Yes, but the problem with saying that the Bible is fact is that there is more than one interpretation of it. Heck, the priests and Pharisees couldn't even figure out from their reading of the Bible that Jesus was the Christ. So it may be fact, but what fact?
That would be ridiculous. That's why I do not make that claim nor have claimed it.
Why you would think I claimed such a thing is a greater mystery.
Just a book , as Shakespeare was JUST a writer. Got to make evaluations.
But science has been used as anti-religion in a big way by the totalitaian faiths. The inquistion killed a few Brunos: Leninm killed several thousand Orthodox priests "just because". they represented the hated superstitition of Christianity and a supposed necessary connection between altar and throne.
I think I read something about up quarks and gluons somewhere in Leviticus. You'll find String Theory and multi-dimensional gravitational gymnastics in Ecclesiastes.
It's a fact, because the alternative just can't possibly be true!
(ahem)
Repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it...
If you're a theistic evolutionist you're at least a step in the right direction.
However the story of creation lays the foundation for the Gospel. Through sin death came into the world, making salvation necessary. If death is not the wages of sin, the whole Bible is false. That's all.
TOE can accommodate this phenomenon, but it can also accommodate its absence, as it has in the past. Common ancestory does not predict it.
No, these ones are non-functional. It is not an assumption. They are not active in protein expression. Also even the rare ERV's that aid function are still due to past RV insertions.
You are assuming the very thing in question. Repeating the premise that these are (and always have been) due nonfunctional products of retro viral infection that have inserted randomly into the genome of the host organism does not prove anything. It is not certain that these ERV's are nonfunctional, and always have been. Such a proof of absence of past functionality is impossible.
Furthermore, it is equally plausible that there is some mechanistic process inherent in the viruses rather than a random process that would account for the phenomena apart from than common ancestry. For example, the enzymes in viruses that do repeatable reactions, under the same conditions. If the DNA in mammals is very similar, then if they are all infected by the same virus, why wouldn't the virus be expected do the same thing in the different species?
You are throwing out all sorts of wild possibilities like someone thrashing around in deep water.
There is nothing wild in what I have asserted. The idea that this phenomena could be accounted for by degeneration of a complex system is just as plausible as the notion of its explanation by random process and common descent. No one has the slightest idea of what the role of these ERV's was in the past. As I said, TOE accommodates the phenomenon, but it also accommodates its absence. And given the failure of past claims of 'definitive genetic proof' of common ancestry, I see no present reason to accept ERV insertion as dogmatically unassailable evidence of TOE.
Cordially,
Yeah, so was ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny and one gene - one enzyme. BFD!
"What you're claiming is that God "designed" human/primate DNA in the exact pattern that we would expect from a common ancestor just to fool us."
I'm not claiming that at all. God is not out to fool us, but definitely some of us (humans) are fools.
The one constant about science is change and evolution of the initial theory, Newton being the best example; a theory holds until a better theory comes along, is tested and supersedes it.
Absolute, immutable certainty is not a scientific trait.
It is not a prediction of TOE; it is an observation that is retroactively called a prediction, and then because the observation fits the prediction it is presented as evidence for TOE. TOE can accomodate the data but it can also accomodate its absence, as it has in the past.
In addition, most retroviral insertions are heavily methylated, ruling out expression.
True, and yet there is protein expression in humans.
Cordially,
The obvious converse of evolution by mutation followed by natural selection is that an absence of mutation will result in no selection.
True, and yet there is protein expression in humans.
By all means cite evidence of expression of a heavily methylated retroviral insertion.
If you say so. But in fact programmed cell death is necessary for any embryo to develop. You would not exist without it. So I guess the alternatives are that you don't exist or the whole Bible is false.
Let me know which alternative you decide is the correct one.
Cold viruses are not retroviruses and cold viruses do not integrate genetic material in to their host's chromosomes.
Repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it...
Which lie are you talking about?
Wow, I guess I'll have to stop believing in God, ya right, not ....
Science has been misused, so therefore it is false?
People who make basketballs use "science". Everyone uses "science". What's your point?
That's like condeming gasoline refineries because Stalin used gasoline.
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.