Posted on 12/28/2005 3:01:53 PM PST by johnnyb_61820
In your mind; will it EVER be?
"You don't usually need to wait on random mutation. Most populations maintain a significant amount of variation at any one time, and thus can respond, often on time scales of a few years or less, to sufficiently extreme selective pressures."
Having less amount of variation in the population is the _opposite_ of evolution. In addition, what evidence is there that the variation is the result of random mutation? This is assuming the conclusion.
In addition, are you sure that in the example you give, there is positive evidence of either random mutationor of selection being the reason for the variation? I've read lots of papers that simply use "selection" for any of a range of phenomena, some quite distant from the ideas that Darwin put forth as "natural selection" (i.e. differential survival and differential reproductive ability).
But... Wouldn't a dehydrated toad find it a bit hard to pee?
Physics was spelled phisics.
Evidently if we can find a misspelling, it casts aspersions on your whole thought process; ergo, you are wrong in everything you say.
Does Dimentio have the weekend off?
This statement belongs in philosophy and mythology, not sciencer.
(See above...)
Why Yes, Yes it was.. :o)
Romans 5:12-21
12. Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--
13. for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
14. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
15. But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
16. Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
17. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
18. Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
19. For just as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
20. The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,
21. so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Works for me!! ;^)
Now you've done it!
There was a guy on this thread earlier that wanted to know - "Who created GOD?"
For certain mutations, such as ebgR, it is regulated by PhoPQ:
Oh?
You seem to 'know' a lot?
Why are we having this discussion?
Bad Monkey!
"Environmental factors can trigger latent genes ... but the genetic information is already in the genome and is not acquired from the environment or because of the environment."
This is the creationist model of genomic change. It is quite Lamarckian -- the response was pre-coded into the genome, but it was itself a genomic (not just a phenotypic) change.
"I haven't seen anything new in this area since 1998 so it may be dead."
There's still work being done. See for example:
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/156/2/477
and also:
http://www.jbc.org/cgi/content/full/276/8/5700
From a scientific viewpoint, you quote mythology.
There is very little (although some) proof by any physical definition that the Bible is anything other than a book of myths and stories.
That I (or you) believe it is not scientific fact.
That is as strong a statement of faith as I have heard from evengelical christians.
Usually a statement of faith starts "I beleive..."
However, a person is entitled to express his faith anyway he wants to, so I concede that his belief is strong.
The Apostle Paul defined faith as hope in things not seen.
By that definition, a statement of faith starting with "I know..." is very strong. I believe him. I use statements of faith to explain what I can't prove all the time.
Nice non-sequiteur.
Neither if your statements has any meaning. Sorry for the type. It is true to form for the CRIDers to pick up on something like that as some sort of support for their position of {poof}
Believing the writers of the old testiment is just like believing Darwin as your Prophet and his disciples as continuing to expound the doctrine.
There are provable truths in the Bible, and there is Faith that beliefs in evolutionary writings will be proven true some time in the future.
It would be bigoted to cast aspersions on your faith in your Prophet and his disciples.
Evolutionists use the Courts and political muscle to enforce the Dogma every bit as much as the Church did in mideaval times.
You clearly can't tell the difference between scientific inquiry and fantasy. You refuse to learn the TOE. You refuse to see why it is the same as physics, mathematics, etc. Using YOUR thinking (or what passes as such), angels hold airplanes aloft.
It is pointless to discuss this with you.
You misunderstand, I beleive that evolution takes place.
When the statement that someone knows that all the principles of evolutionary theory have been shown, they are making a leap of faith.
Nobody has shown how one species becomes another. That it takes place may be shown someday just as the evolutionist prophets have said. To beleive they are writing the truth is a demonstration of faith in their teachings.
As I stated, it would be bigoted to deny them their faith. As an excercise, show a link to a "peer reviewed" article which proves how mastadons became elephants or how manitees became elephants. They are said to be on the same branch.
As I have stated, it is not wrong to use statements of faith to explain things that have not been proven. It is just misleading to represent statements of faith as 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.