Posted on 04/21/2006 9:17:58 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
I don't, but you apparently do. I was being sarcastic.
How is it apparent I do? I have said nothing to indicate that. I find your derangement for reality here bizarre.
That's because I'm repeating what you said in post 46,
I wrote nothing even vaguely similar to this in 46. Again, you seem delusional.
Keep in mind the greatest critics of evolution should be evolutionists themselves, if it is a real science.
As far as being a critic of it, I don;t think that's what you mean and in terms of what you mean I am in no way a critic.
As far as alternatives to evolution, why do you think someone should present an alternative?
Thanks for the honest upfront answer on your scientific background.
Why do you believe so strongly in evolution if you are scientifically unlearned, as you have honestly and graciously admitted?
If I may offer a few comments.
tallhappy writes: "the greatest critics of evolution should be evolutionists themselves, if it is a real science".
They are. In grad school I had 2 or 3 semesters (been a while) in a seminar titled "Problems in Evolution." The professor and students all battled every point imaginable, from paleontology to genetics and back--but not religious belief. You are dissing evolutionary scientists as "not real scientists" because they do not include your particular religious belief in their work. Not a very valid argument.
You also note: "why do you think someone should present an alternative?" Are you going to overturn a scientific theory for no reason? Theories change when better alternatives come along. If you have one, present it. But you don't. What you have is a religious belief, not a scientific alternative to the theory of evolution.
You attack js1138 thusly: "Why do you believe so strongly in evolution if you are scientifically unlearned, as you have honestly and graciously admitted?"
Not a very nice comment. Try me instead, if you find js1138 so "unlearned" (which is incorrect). I did half my Ph.D. work in human osteology, human races, and fossil man (read evolution). I have kept up a bit since then. Don't know the new genetics stuff (which by itself is evidence enough to "prove" the theory), but I know my way around a bone on a good day.
You are wrong.
To the extent that one can follow your non-technical description I agree with those ideas. In fact I think this is the major finding of recent biology -- the importance of chromosomal structure and its structure.
It did not come from evolutionists. In fact it is another perfect example where basic science is driving evolutionary understanding, not the other way. Barbara Mcclintock doing purely classical genetic type experiments made the first discoveries that eventually lead to this understanding. The recent genome projects, which were not done by evolutionists provided the information to analyze chromosomal structure at the molecular level.
I'm curious where you read what you read and relate that puts this 180 degree spin on things.
PS, this new understanding also greatly impacts very negatively on the conventional darwinian synthesis that looked, understandably and logically, at gene similarities.
It's an exciting time and I am glad to see at least one person here actually is joining the 21st century in terms of current knowledge and emerging understanding of evolutionary theory.
This is an absurd statement.
You interest me in what you talk about in your post concerning 'fragile breakage', chromosomal rearrangements being non random, and how this fragile breakage theory has implications in medicine...
It interests me specifically, as my older son had a disease, which was at the time(20yrs ago), partially diagnosed on the appearance of a chromosomal breakage, and a chromosomal translocation...at that time, it was not understood, whether the disease caused the genetic chromosomal abnormality , or if the genetic abnormality of the chromosomes, caused the disease...today, the doctors believe that it is the abnormality which causes the disease...that knowlegdge, along with the understanding of other criteria of the disease, cause there to come about a difference in the treatment of that disease...with greatly added benefits to the patient...
Dont know how exactly this ties into evolution, but the understanding of the mechanism of how and why chromosomes break apart, and rearrange themselves, is a huge step forward in the curing of certain diseases....
In the context of this discussion, the understanding of the significance of chromosomal re-arranem,ents also owes a lot to hematologists studying leukemia.
In no way did the evolutionists drive this field or area of understanding.
I will always remember the derision (in terms of simply asking questions he obviously wouldn't know at his seminars) one of the older professors who studied evolution got from a younger plant molecular biologist.
I'm left with the sense you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
No, I don't really think you do. You've destroyed any credibility you would have otherwise had with me.
I have no way of knowing with any certainty, who did or did not contribute to the understanding of and significance of chromosomal breakages, rearrangements, or translocations...
Certainly within the field of medical research, there are strides being made every day, in understanding the importance of shifts in chomosomes...But I have no way of knowing, if evolution plays a part in this understanding...I am just grateful, that the doctors, and the scientists are doing this research, as it will undoubtedly prove productive now and for the future...
I dont know that most leukemias, are due to chromosomal translocations...some are definitely known, that is for sure...this is why patients, newly diagnosed with leukemia, have a genetic profile done, while they are first diagnosed, and the cancer is present and also a genetic profile done, once they are in remission...and then if the relapse, the genetic profile is done again...and so on...
What surprised me, was that I thought once a genetic abnormality was present, within an individual, that genetic abnormality, stayed as it was...surprisingly, that is not the case, as my sons own case showed...when newly diagnosed, he had two chromosomal abnormalities...upon remission, and a further genetic test, he showed absolutely no abnormalities...when he relapsed, the abnormalities were again present...that surprised me greatly...
I dont know and cannot say, whether or not, scientists used their knowledge of evolution, in an understanding of this process...
Put up or shut up.
What accomplishments have been made by evolutionists that match those of:
Mendel,
Sutton
Hunt
Avery/Hershey/Chase
McClintock
Pauling
Watson/Crick
None of the above were evolutionists or specifically studying evolution. But their findings have done more to futher evolutionary understanding than anything done by evolutionists.
Now your turn.
Remember when grinding your axe, not to let the metal get too hot. It may become brittle.
Thanks for the ping!
Cells can become abnormal. They will pass on this abnormality (or even more so) to their progeny cells upon cell division.
But, this does not mean all cells in the body have the abnormality. Normal cells can increase in number compared to abnormal ones which would be a remission.
If you don't mind saying, what was the disease?
Typical. All hot air.
I worked on the Human Genome Project. You're full of it.
It was acute promyelocytic leukemia...translocation between chromosome #15 and #17, and a trisomy-monosomy between chromosomes #7 and #8...visible upon diagnosis, not visible in remission, again, visible on relapse...
I would think this would be worthwhile information to include in your profile, especially one given to verbosity, yet I see not even at hint of this.
In what capacity did you work on the Human Genome Project?
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.