Skip to comments.
Still Evolving, Human Genes Tell New Story
New York Times ^
| 3/7/06
| Nicholas Wade
Posted on 03/06/2006 7:29:42 PM PST by CobaltBlue
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-54 next last
To: martin_fierro; Pharmboy
2
posted on
03/06/2006 7:30:15 PM PST
by
CobaltBlue
(Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
To: SunkenCiv; blam
3
posted on
03/06/2006 7:31:04 PM PST
by
CobaltBlue
(Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
To: CobaltBlue
"The genes that show this evolutionary change include some responsible .... brain function."
How EXCITING! What wonderful news!!! Soon we'll have figured out just why, exactly, those certain people we all know about have such a terrible time thinking at all!!
4
posted on
03/06/2006 7:34:27 PM PST
by
gobucks
(Blissful Marriage: A result of a worldly husband's transformation into the Word's wife.)
To: CobaltBlue
Sloppy definition of evolution, IMO.
The key issue in the evolution debate is about speciation. Noting some genetic changes in humans in the past 5000 years is not controversial (I've seen genetic changes in my family in the past two generations).
This stuff gets published as "evidence" of evolution, and I think it is not that at all, unless one defines evolution as "change in the frequency of alleles" which, to my mind, is a definition chosen just because it is indisputable (and therefore too broad to be meaningful).
To: ClearCase_guy
'Macroevolution' is the one they still can't prove.
6
posted on
03/06/2006 7:39:33 PM PST
by
Crazieman
(6-23-2005, Establishment of the United Socialist States of America)
To: ClearCase_guy
Last time I took a college class in evolution, the definition was "a change in gene frequency." Just googled it, and that appears to still be the definition.
7
posted on
03/06/2006 7:40:05 PM PST
by
CobaltBlue
(Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
To: Junior; PatrickHenry
To: caryatid; CobaltBlue; Emmalein; Jessarah; Ol' Sox; Old Student; Pharmboy; RikaStrom; rustbucket; ...
To: CobaltBlue
The NYT is proof there has been no evolution in brain function.
10
posted on
03/06/2006 7:42:35 PM PST
by
sageb1
(This is the Final Crusade. There are only 2 sides. Pick one.)
To: CobaltBlue
11
posted on
03/06/2006 7:43:45 PM PST
by
patriciaruth
(http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1562436/posts)
To: Crazieman; PatrickHenry
'Macroevolution' is the one they still can't prove. Because no one can agree on the meaning of the word "prove".
12
posted on
03/06/2006 7:47:00 PM PST
by
narby
(Evolution is the new "third rail" in American politics)
To: CobaltBlue
Unfortunately, the brains of creationists haven't evolved...
13
posted on
03/06/2006 7:47:39 PM PST
by
WestVirginiaRebel
(Islamofascists don't need cartoons. They're already caricatures.)
To: WestVirginiaRebel
14
posted on
03/06/2006 7:52:22 PM PST
by
sagar
To: ClearCase_guy
Derbyshire (the pro-evolution writer for the National Review) already had an article on this a few months back. He said two interesting things about it.
First, this is a very un-PC discovery, as it is a scientific explanation of racial differences in intelligence.
Second, that it actually supports both ID and Evolution. (I suppose it was sort of a "chosen people" argument. I do not remember it, but nonetheless, the genetic change did happen at the time of Adam / Noah and the separating of the tribes just before Abram.) Make of it what you will.
To: CobaltBlue
16
posted on
03/06/2006 8:09:42 PM PST
by
LiteKeeper
(Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
To: Corinthian Warrior
17
posted on
03/06/2006 8:27:19 PM PST
by
Corinthian Warrior
("Don't throw stones at every dog that barks at you." George Silver, Paradoxes of Defense.)
To: narby
I think quite a few have a problem defining "macroevolution" as well
18
posted on
03/06/2006 9:16:32 PM PST
by
dan1123
To: CobaltBlue
"May," "perhaps," "could," - these are the words of supposition, not science.
To: martin_fierro
20
posted on
03/06/2006 10:08:02 PM PST
by
SunkenCiv
(Yes indeed, Civ updated his profile and links pages again, on Monday, March 6, 2006.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-54 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
