GGG Ping ?
Oh man, blam. Now you’ve done it. The Creation Weenies are gonna be in here any second to give you a wedgie!
Try "National Academy of Imbeciles"
What kind of idiot continues to cling to the thoroughly debunked, sloppily concocted myth of "evolution"? There is absolutely no scientific evidence upon which might rest such a hairbrained theory. None.
Just goes to show, those who believe in nothing will pretty much believe in anything. Rather than admit the truth, they feverishly seek only that which their itching ears want to hear.
The price to be paid for insisting on a seat at this show just isn't worth it. Not by half.
{Hint} Forget the sunscreen... bring some barbecue sauce.
;-/
Most pseudo-genes (looks like a gene but no longer an open reading frame) change at the neutral mutation rate. Within an open reading frame there is more likely to be changes in the third codon position than at other positions because changes at this position usually do not change what amino acid is coded for, or entail a conservative substitution.
Probably the most surprising thing about the genome project was the existence of these evolutionarily conserved DNA sequences that do not code for proteins.
Circular Reasoning Ping!
Exxon and Enron.
Very large influences on life on Earth.
A very profitable influence.
Interesting article citation.
So What's At Stake?
An evolutionary understanding of human origins is ultimately destructive to Christianity if one embraces its full implications.
There is a major crisis of biblical authority if you reject the historicity of Adam and Eve. There is no clear transition from mere story to true history as you move from Eden to the Flood to Abraham to the Exodus to David to Babylon to Jesus. On what authority will you decide what happened and what didn't?
An evangelical must deal with the verses noted above. If, after working through the issue, you understand what the Bible teaches and then reject it, you must let go of the terms evangelical and inerrantist, since you believe the Bible to be untrue on this point.
If you're going to abandon a historical Christian teaching on the basis of current scientific theory, macroevolution rests on very shaky scientific ground and explicitly anti-supernatural metaphysical ground.
As savage as animals are, how can we understand Adam's innocence in the garden, and thus the significance of his fall into sin? The startling contrast between the original human state and the fallen state of Genesis 3-9 and beyond makes little sense if Adam lived by the law of the jungle prior to 2:7.
Evangelical evolutionists must seriously restrict the implications of macroevolution and focus very heavily on the reception of the image of God in Genesis 2:7. The larger a role they let evolution play in their worldview, the more doctrinal trouble it causes–a good clue that the belief is in error. For example:
How does evolution affect our understanding of Old Testament animal sacrifices?
If we evolved from animals, should we derive our morality from the natural behavior of animals?
If we evolved from animals, why are we morally accountable for our actions at all if animals are not?
If animals cease to exist when they die, why do humans experience an afterlife–especially the wicked who don't have eternal life?
Can animals be saved, blessed, baptized, etc.?
Should highly-evolved animals be considered persons, have rights or even citizenship as some evolutionists propose? If we evolved from animals, what makes human life so sacred and more valuable than animal life?
Can highly-evolved animals rightly be owned as pets, or is that a form of slavery?
If we evolved from animals and are not commonly descended from Adam and Eve, who is to say we are all really equal? Might some of us be more or less evolved than others?
If we relegate the first chapters of Genesis to myth, how much trust can we put in the many doctrines that have the creation account as their foundation?
The common scheme of parsimony,
visible everywhere in creation,
strongly suggests that the “introns” formerly deemed “junk DNA”
do have important roles in human development.
Those roles easily could turn out to be
interfaces between the 4 spacetime dimensions of the material realm
... and a “metareal” realm comprising
additional - non-material - dimensions.
Cf. the 10 “condensed” dimensions of string theory and the
11 dimensions of its superset, M-theory.
A real experiment -- like where you get your hands dirty (figuratively speaking) and put your theory's reputation on the line?
Perish the thought.
nice post....
Scientists had been guessing wrongly about the human appendix for decades, likewise claiming that the appendix was evolutionary residue; a subtle way for atheists and secularists to try to sweep God under a carpet. But scientists have now discovered God's purpose for the appendix.
Appendix not evolutionary residueWhere so-called genome residue is concerned, given that scientists have bills to pay like everybody else, I suspect that scientists are again willing to pimp out their credentials, lending their reputations to politically correct agendas in exchange for funding.
The Scars of Evolution:"The most remarkable aspect of Todaro's discovery emerged when he examined Homo Sapiens for the 'baboon marker'. It was not there... Todaro drew one firm conclusion. 'The ancestors of man did not develop in a geographical area where they would have been in contact with the baboon. I would argue that the data we are presenting imply a non-African origin of man millions of years ago.'"
What Our Bodies Tell Us
About Human Origins
by Elaine Morgan
Primary Literature by Jonathan Marks
Benveniste, Raoul E. and Todaro, George J. (1976) Evolution of type C viral genes: Evidence for an Asian origin of man. Nature, 261:101-107. This study also applied DNA hybridization to the apes. They found a 3-way split.
socrates.berkeley.edu/~jonmarks/biblio.html
|
|
|||
Gods |
Thanks Blam. |
||
|
· Mirabilis · Texas AM Anthropology News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · · History or Science & Nature Podcasts · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
The facts in this article are undeniable.
The conclusions, less so...