Posted on 08/16/2006 11:38:54 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
"The current work was funded by"
a thread last night
Notice that there is no way to prove any piece of this sentence. You can't prove that it has evolved or that it is evolving, you can't prove what this gene has to do with brain development. The word 'linked' is meaningless. There is also no way to show how a gene controls the development of anything outside the cell.
Brain gene shows dramatic difference from chimpDemocrat to human.
Whatever part of Islam derives from Judaism or Christianity, the business about God turning men into apes is purely Koranic.
Greek warrior Spartan civilization. Weakling infants were left in the mountains to die.
The Republic, Book 5, Section 1. Plato recommended state-supervised selective breeding of children.
The topic of culture in animals is quite intriguing.
Interesting little things those genes. Like little machines made in a factory even.
If you don't want someone to find something, hide it in such a pile of extraneous and irrelevant stuff that they will never take the time to sort it out and you can claim they are stupid or lazy. Is that what it takes for evolution worshippers to keep their self-image together.
You constantly post barrages of links to pages which themsleves are composed of barrages of links to pages with yet more links. Yet you'll give the link some seemingly straitforward title like "The Evidence for human evolution." As a healthy skeptic of neo-Darwinism and hater of leftist propganda tactics I'm constantly disappointed when I actually try to listen to the Darwinists or read what they really have to say.
Here is the only intelligent site on these issues from an evolutionist I've ever found. He honestly interacts with the best of the anti-Darwin world.
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/
Deliberate ignorance is such a sad thing to witness.
They also have an uncanny ability to best professional stockpickers simply by throwing darts at stock listings, even when blindfolded!
Without having read this thread yet, but having read many a preceding one, I can guess the reactions to this by many in the FR community. If a scientist as a matter of linguistic convenience uses a word that implies design, that in itself is somehow proof of ID. However, if as in the above-quoted case he flat-out says that something has been and still is evolving, that only shows he's letting his preconceptions, suppositions, assumptions, and materialist worldview run away with his logic.
And, they show they are even smarter than us by not giving any of their income to those stockpickers.
As Darwin knew (and Hitler didn't) the more variability there is in a species, the better its chances of survival over the long run. Hitler's scheme was almost a guarantee of eventual extinction. A sad example of attempted "intelligent design."
I'd double-check that.
'I'll have some fish and chimps, please'.
Somebody had to say it.
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.