Posted on 04/11/2013 7:38:52 AM PDT by kimtom
"..A common quibble laid at the feet of the creationist is that he/she is not qualified to speak about scientific matters relating to the creation/evolution controversy..."
(Excerpt) Read more at apologeticspress.org ...
I do not need to be an “expert” in what others believe but in what I believe.
I love it when they pull that one on me... and I get to explain that I have a Ph.D. in Molecular Biology, have done research that has been published, and have taught at the college level. Most liberals cannot comprehend how I can be a creationist!
My argument is that anyone that has not actually read from beginning to end, and made an effort to understand, a published scientific paper in a peer-reviewed journal is not qualified to discuss any aspect of science.
Again, reading a magazine or newpaper article ABOUT science, or a press release about a scientific discovery, does not count.
This criteria probably disqualifies all but 2-3 people on this thread.
What motivates you to do science?
Oh, then we should all just shut up to your intellectual superiority...
I suppose we’re “racists” as well?
Prediction 4.5: Molecular evidence - Endogenous retroviruses
Figure 4.4.1. Human endogenous retrovirus K (HERV-K) insertions in identical chromosomal locations in various primates (Reprinted from Lebedev et al. 2000, © 2000, with permission from Elsevier Science).
Endogenous retroviruses provide yet another example of molecular sequence evidence for universal common descent. Endogenous retroviruses are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection. Occasionally, copies of a retrovirus genome are found in its host’s genome, and these retroviral gene copies are called endogenous retroviral sequences. Retroviruses (like the AIDS virus or HTLV1, which causes a form of leukemia) make a DNA copy of their own viral genome and insert it into their host’s genome. If this happens to a germ line cell (i.e. the sperm or egg cells) the retroviral DNA will be inherited by descendants of the host. Again, this process is rare and fairly random, so finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry.
Confirmation:
In humans, endogenous retroviruses occupy about 1% of the genome, in total constituting ~30,000 different retroviruses embedded in each person’s genomic DNA (Sverdlov 2000). There are at least seven different known instances of common retrogene insertions between chimps and humans, and this number is sure to grow as both these organism’s genomes are sequenced (Bonner et al. 1982; Dangel et al. 1995; Svensson et al. 1995; Kjellman et al. 1999; Lebedev et al. 2000; Sverdlov 2000). Figure 4.4.1 shows a phylogenetic tree of several primates, including humans, from a recent study which identified numerous shared endogenous retroviruses in the genomes of these primates (Lebedev et al. 2000). The arrows designate the relative insertion times of the viral DNA into the host genome. All branches after the insertion point (to the right) carry that retroviral DNA - a reflection of the fact that once a retrovirus has inserted into the germ-line DNA of a given organism, it will be inherited by all descendents of that organism.
The Felidae (i.e. cats) provide another example. The standard phylogenetic tree has small cats diverging later than large cats. The small cats (e.g. the jungle cat, European wildcat, African wildcat, blackfooted cat, and domestic cat) share a specific retroviral gene insertion. In contrast, all other carnivores which have been tested lack this retrogene (Futuyma 1998, pp. 293-294; Todaro et al. 1975).
Potential Falsification:
It would make no sense, macroevolutionarily, if certain other mammals (e.g. dogs, cows, platypi, etc.), had these same retrogenes in the exact same chromosomal locations. For instance, it would be incredibly unlikely for dogs to also carry the three HERV-K insertions that are unique to humans, as shown in the upper right of Figure 4.4.1, since none of the other primates have these retroviral sequences.
reference: Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
Can you answer “what is the purpose of Man?”
Same answer, I’m sure, for the poster in question...
What mechanism explains how an e.coli in the lab developed the ability to metabolize citric acid?
What mechanism explains differences in human populations?
What mechanism explains the development of antibiotic resistance to novel antibiotics?
Ask your 'libinlaw' how that argument stood up in Copernicus' day. (I'm almost certain you're going to have to explain Copernicus to them first) “It must be true because so many learned people believe it.”
The guy is a PHD I think he can answer for himself.
“...“proof”. A case in point that you are not qualified to discuss science. There is no proof in science - just evidence.....”
I am as qualified as you to discuss ANY subject.
Your reply shows contempt for anyone who does not agree with your conclusions.
“..Even the most learned men can be idiots...”
I know all of your arguments....
Open system/Closed system, etc.
I notice there was no response or snide remarks about the other laws that were mentioned, how come?
How would you respond to this:
This rebuttal is given by Professor Andy McIntosh, PhD in Aeronautics. The full article can be found at http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/02/12/just-add-energy:
The laws of thermodynamics have one law in particular—the Second Law of Thermodynamics—which says that in a closed system the amount of energy that is no longer available for useful work is increasing. This is energy “lost” to the system per unit degree of temperature, and it is called the entropy of the system….
The principle of energy loss for useful work still applies in an open system, since there is no benefit unless there is a machine to use the energy added. Boeing 777s cannot be made in a car factory by adding loads of sunlight or electricity unless the machinery is available to use that energy to build Boeing 777s. Similarly the human brain cannot be formed from simpler machines just by adding energy if there is no machinery available to do this. Spontaneously forming of such machinery will not happen.
Right On!!
But in a conservative view that rejects postmodernism as useless feel good liberal clap trap - you have yet to demonstrate any familiarity with the subject.
As to contempt - I am sorry if I hurt your little feelings. But feelings shouldn’t get in the way of you defining your terms and applying them to the real world.
Do you need a trophy for participation? Would that make you feel better?
There are of course a handful of geologists with real geology degrees (probably countable on both hands at most) that are young-earth creationists, that earn their living writing books telling creationists what they want to hear.
But if you went to the geology department at the college or university closest to you, I’d bet you a considerable amount of money all of them believe the Earth is billions of years old. If you kept going to the next closest one, you won’t find a YEC. You’d probably have to spend the better part of a year visiting geology departments and talk to thousands of geologists before you’d find a YEC.
There are tens of thousands of geologists in the world, including those outside academic departments. If you go to all the oil companies you’ll almost certainly find that all their geologists discovering oil are doing so based on an understanding the Earth is billions of years old.
Then you understand and can see, a few posters get their undies in a wad.
I used to be indoctrinated too.
Thank God for intelligent people and scientist that see the real picture.
God Bless
I’ve watched debates between Darwinists and scientists who are creationists. The base comes out of the Darwinists’ voice and the nose comes closer to the horizon when they know they can’t baffle their opponent with terms they might not be familiar with.
This isn’t a debate but it’s a classic from Richard Dawkins who wrote The God Delusion. Basically someone asks Dawkins if he can give an example of evolution. Silence followed eventually by weasel wordsmithing ensues. Ultimately the answer is “No.” Yup, sounds like science to me, science fiction that is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W4e4MwogLo
I’ve always loved to understand how living beings “work”. For example, one of my earliest interests was lactation in kangaroos; the female has 2 joeys a year apart and she manages to produce two types of milk, very different in composition, in different amounts. How is that process controlled? In the last few years I have been fascinated with the parallels between what we think we know about the origins of the universe and the story in Genesis 1 (although you have to go to the original Hebrew to see it, sometimes). I just love life!
The majority of people on this earth believe in a lie, but that does not make it true.
read John Woodmorappe’s book,then if you disagree, we will discuss it.
Thanks
“...As to contempt - I am sorry if I hurt your little feelings...”
No, feelings are not hurt, I was waiting for you.
I like your comments, You are easy to read.
I feel Good,
Thanks!!!
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.