Posted on 09/25/2014 6:50:38 AM PDT by fishtank
Genome Scrambling and Encryption Befuddles Evolution
by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. *
One-cell creatures called ciliates are expanding our knowledge of genome dynamics and complexity. Now a newly sequenced ciliate genome reveals unimaginable levels of programmed rearrangement combined with an ingenious system of encryption.1
Contrary to the evolutionary prediction of simple-to-complex in the alleged tree of life, one-cell ciliates are exhibiting astonishing genetic complexity.2 The ciliate Oxytricha trifallax has two different genomes contained in separate nuclei. The micronucleus is dense and compact and used for reproduction while the macronucleus is dramatically rearranged, amplified, and used for the creature's standard daily living.
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
Coming from a Master of the Art, you should know.
But your real mastery is at the art of Changing The Subject. I, Betty, Alamo-Girl, and a host of others have repeatedly put you on notice that the target of our disagreement is with the scientists who defy the clearly stated and commonly accepted scientific canon that Science is competent to deal only with material fact, and cannot be used to deny the existence of the Judeo-Christian Tradition, including God’s creation. We have named many highly accomplished scientists such as Richard Dawkins, Steven Weinberg, Daniel Dennett, William B. Provine, Steven Pinker, Stephen J. Gould, Peter Sanger, Michael Tooley, Richard Lewontin, Carl Sagan (now deceased), Marc Hauser, and Victor Stenger, as well as thousands of their less well-known colleagues and various other camp-followers (Liberals), who use Science as the instrument to declare that God (any deity) does not exist and that religion is therefore useless. You continue to deny that any such exist despite the fact that they are now so widespread and public that they have become a part of the public domain.
Your level of denial is truly astonishing.
You've named 12, past and present.
And you characterize this as "many" of how scientists have there ever been, past and present?
Yes, I'm trying to quantify it, because that's how you find it that "many" is really significant, or is just a miniscule fraction of what's actually being considered.
And I'll submit that any proposition needs to be subjected to that kind of scrutiny. There's nothing wrong with asking that question, and it needs to be done more often.
Thats a straw man.. she never said what you say(implied) she said.. that I can see..
..ALL.. scientists was you're perception... I didn't get that at all..
Use of superlatives is usually by juveniles.. mainly girls..
-OR- projection of intellectual weakness..
try to pay attention..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
This is not an argument, its just contradiction.
:)
No matter how many you cite, its not “many”.
..ALL.. scientists was you're perception... I didn't get that at all..
Take a look at the description of "working scientists" in the post at 58. Like bees in a hive - mindless identical de-humanized drones. Not individuals - no personal philosophy or beliefs of their own, all working and thinking exactly as they are told.
How can someone who thinks of them that way talk about one, or a few, or "many" and not consider all of the rest the same?
As our FRiend, marron, observes, any number I cite, will not be “many.” If I provided twenty, you would demand thirty more; and if I complied, you would demand fifty more; ad infinitum.
And through the fog of your numbers game, you continue to attempt to evade the issue by changing the subject. The issue is the abuse of Science by Liberals to malign Conservatives, Libertarians, and others such as myself, in an attempt to shut us up. Isn’t going to happen my FRiend, despite your best efforts.
Thanks FRiend marron, for your timely insight.
I'd say, take two doses a day of this "prescription." This should help to preserve one's sanity. :^)
The MP gambit definitely captures the "flavor" of what passes for "discourse" with certain folks nowadays.
But laughter is said to have salutary effects. Maybe we all should just laugh more.
T; How can someone who thinks of them that way talk about one, or a few, or “many” and not consider all of the rest the same?
You need to get out more... i.e. all illegal aliens are illegal unless their not..
Zero says their not illegal... and their NOT..
except they still are..
It’s quite confusing to some.. but not if you’re paying attention..
Conversely, you could consider and cite virtually any number as being "many".
And through the fog of your numbers game, you continue to attempt to evade the issue by changing the subject. The issue is the abuse of Science by Liberals to malign Conservatives, Libertarians, and others such as myself, in an attempt to shut us up. Isn’t going to happen my FRiend, despite your best efforts.
Nobody's trying to "shut you up". All I ask for was for a subjective and potentially ambiguous term to be clarified
If that's the issue, then the blame is being misdirected. It is not the fault of science that people abuse it.
It’s quite confusing to some.. but not if you’re paying attention..
I don't think it's all that confusing. Whoever can control the terms can control debate. If "illegal" is illegal when Obama says it is and isn't when he says it's not then he controls the debate and will have us at a disadvantage as long as we let him do it.
Ah!.. then there it is.. you must be trying to control the debate..
Someone must win or lose... Are you winning?..
How do you know I'm not trying to prevent someone else from controlling it?
How do you know I’m not trying to prevent someone else from controlling it?
Easy; because you’re very selective about what you respond to..
If you addressed every point you would have to agree on some point(s)..
You address certain specific items and ignore others..
and find nothing you can partially agree with.. thats why..
Thereby making making those point(s) (not responded to) irrelevant.. to YOUR debate..
Controlling your debate making your opponent “a tool”..
AND....... projecting victory, when you lost like Wiley E. Coyote...
Mocking an actual debate.. (pay attention)....
Thereby making makeing those point(s) (not responded to) irrelevant.. to YOUR debate.. Controlling your debate making your opponent “a tool”..
I thought the claim was that I was controlling the debate by controlling the terms.
When you said:
you must be trying to control the debate..
I assumed "must" was deductive. It appears it was imperative.
Kabuki theater, with a rodeo clown.
I assumed “must” was deductive. It appears it was imperative.
Kabuki theater, with a rodeo clown.
In a Donkey Rodeo the BULL is the Star..
Rodeo clowns run out into the ring and create a distraction when someone gets into trouble, giving them a chance to escape.
There are a lot of people (Liberals) who would like for me to “Shut Up” (you included), which is as true of my colleagues as myself. Had they the power, Liberals, and others, would see all of us dead (witness Voice of the Martyrs, over one million killed yearly and millions more harassed or brutalized), or at least see us behind the fence of a concentration camp (probably not including you). Liberals haven’t yet the power to incarcerate us or to murder us, so they must resort to low forms of political attack such as mockery, scorn, and slander, along with largely successful efforts to publicly and financially destroy the more prominent of us. See the pages of the FR forum almost daily, or the Rush Limbaugh program for documentation.
If that's the issue, then the blame is being misdirected. It is not the fault of science that people abuse it.
It is the fault of science people that the abuse and misuse of Science is allowed to go unchallenged (presumably to protect their precious federal grants). That is what betty, Alamo-Girl, and many others have sought to correct. And it is what you have constantly sought to misdirect and sidetrack with your numbers game.
That by its very nature is controlling.
So yes, you are trying to control the debate.
It's just a matter of who is controlling the debate.
But it's not *not controlling the debate* when you do it and it is *controlling the debate* when someone else does it.
And you aren't?
Rodeo clowns run out into the ring and create a distraction when someone gets into trouble,
giving them a chance to escape.
Good point.. I knew there was humor in there somewhere..
Carl Sagan said something I always remembered..
“Life had to start somewhere first... why not here on this planet.?.”
Paraphrased of course.. but the meme was there..
Damned good question.. just as valid as somewhere else..
Available evidence suggests it might be a correct assumption..
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.