Posted on 01/30/2016 7:12:48 AM PST by bray
Economic issues are central to US conservatism. Otherwise, you give assent to left-wing economics and government micromanagement of same thus leading to ever-increasing government size and force.
Stalin was also pro-life and anti-homosexual in practice. It does not mean he was not left wing, however.
Exactly, it goes against everything that occurs naturally. Supply and demand are a fluid concept and Marxism is static.
I’m sorry you insist on clinging to your indoctrination so tightly. You are letting the Marxists win, as well as using elements of their anti-religious propaganda. And FTR, comparing evolutionary theory with atomic theory is comparing apples and oranges; atomic nuclei have been seen using electron microscopes.
Changes in microorganisms is not evolutionary, if indeed the change is in the microorganism to begin with and not in the people they infect. Do antibiotic-resistant bacteria change into different species or do they stay the same species? The latter.
You really think your thuggish namecalling tactics are going to shut people up?
Those viruses are not evolving to another virus they are simply adapting or mutating defenses to combat certain vaccines. The flu virus never becomes a cold virus it stays in the flu family and simply develops a resistance.
That is not evolution and no scientist has been able to change the DNA of one virus to another or it would be cured completely. You are interchanging words from adaptation to evolution which is completely different.
Why as a scientist would you spend your time defending it rather than poking holes in it to see if it can withstand scrutiny? Because it is a political tenant just like Global Warming. Do you really believe man came from an amoeba?
Sounded like you were mocking Christians.
God forbid I do that, even accidentally.
The subtlety of certain points of Marxist indoctrination as we’ve been subjected to for years does erode some people’s faith, and I’d like to see that stopped even at this late point in the game.
BTW, I was not directing “unbelievers” at anyone specific.
You know what? God gave me a sharp intellect and vivid curiosity about the universe that He created. Unlike you, I do not feel threatened that the universe about which He made me so curious does not match the details of a lesson about morality written a few thousand years ago.
I do not know how someone can possibly be “indoctrinated” in science. The scientific method is based on getting to the truth, regardless of preconceived ideas and beliefs. Young people interested in science are taught about the experimental evidence that led to certain conclusions, which then led to more experimentation, leading to more conclusions, etc. They are encouraged to examine the evidence for themselves and to reproduce some of the early experiments. I do not know how that equates to “indoctrination.”
As I have said, and will continue to say, it is impossible to conduct any kind of biological research while trying to pretend that the fundamental framework of biology does not exist. The Soviet Union tried that—they arrested and executed scientists who kept insisting that the physical nature of the world cannot be changed for political expediency. They did not succeed in changing biology to align to Soviet principles, but they did succeed in setting back biomedical research for decades—a setback that they are still trying to overcome. Trying to force scientists to conduct research that adheres to Genesis, rather than physical evidence, would be just as fruitless. You simply cannot advance technology in ANY field without a correct understanding of the physical laws underlying it.
So why don’t you believe Him, i.e. what He says on the matter? Ultimately, this is between you and He, and I am merely incidental. Incorporating theories ultimately derived from pagan doctrine is not in God’s honor FWICS, WADR.
Evolution is not fundamental to biology, sorry. People like Pasteur (who believed in creation) are far more important (dare I say infinitely more important) to the development of biology than people such as Darwin.
Do you realize they are finding cholesterol may be a good thing for the circulatory system and salt may be necessary and not lead to HBP?
Medical research may be the most corrupted of all.
In my experience, the term "adaptation" has been used extensively by con-men who use the word to describe evolution without actually using the word "evolution." Those con-men also have very limited understanding of evolution--the "adaptation" process they describe in order to avoid using the word "evolution" actually proceeds orders of magnitude faster than real evolution, and would result in greater change far faster than we actually observe. There actually is no "adaptation"--what happens is that viruses reproduce so rapidly that a person can be infected with millions or billions of virus particles at a time. And since each new virus is genetically different (genetic mutation happens during reproduction of any organism), some of those viruses happen to have mutations that make them better suited for survival.
The changes in the flu virus are in the genetic material, which, by definition, means they are evolutionary changes. That is because any change in an organism is coded in the genetic material, and the genetic material changes randomly, spontaneously, and constantly. For the most part, those changes in the flu virus enable it to bypass the immune system. That is why you can get the flu over and over, and why the flu vaccine has to be changed every year.
That is not evolution and no scientist has been able to change the DNA of one virus to another or it would be cured completely. You are interchanging words from adaptation to evolution which is completely different.
Not all viruses use DNA, some use RNA instead. Besides that, scientists change the DNA and RNA of viruses all the time, and have created many viruses that do not exist in nature. Is that evolution? No, but it is using the tools and principles of evolution to come up with things not found in nature. BTW, this kind of research is strictly regulated, and scientists are careful to maintain positive control over new organisms.
Why as a scientist would you spend your time defending it rather than poking holes in it to see if it can withstand scrutiny? Because it is a political tenant just like Global Warming. Do you really believe man came from an amoeba?
By its nature, science is a process of poking holes in assumptions and trying to test them. We spend our lives not trying to positively prove things, but trying to disprove them. Not only that, but we criticize and poke holes in other scientists' work. If you are a scientist and you want to publish your research results, one of the first things you do is send your manuscript to other scientists to be criticized. If the manuscript holds up to their scrutiny, you send it to a scientific journal, which sends it to other scientists, experts in your field, who read it and do their best to poke holes in it. Usually, you have to fix things about the manuscript before you can publish it, but once it has survived all the criticism and attempts to poke holes, it can be published. This is the peer-review process.
Part of the process of educating young scientists is teaching them to be critical and to be ruthless about questioning assumptions.
As I pointed out before, the concept of "global warming" is pretty much in its own category. You have to understand that politicians have agendas, and they distribute funding for research. And research progress is reported to Congress, very few of whom are scientists. As an example, someone who is studying the spread of Zika virus northwards into the US is undoubtedly looking at the issue very scientifically, examining where susceptible mosquito populations are, how efficiently the virus is transmitted human to mosquito back to human, etc. Invasion of species into areas where they have never been before is nothing new; it has been going on since there has been life on earth. Perhaps, for whatever reason, that scientist studying Zika virus does not think it is getting enough attention and that more people need to be researching it. Well, that scientist is competing with thousands of other scientists, each clamoring that their avenue of research has major public health implications. How does that Zika virus researcher make his/her voice a little louder than the other researchers? By tying it to global warming, because every scientist is aware that our scientifically illiterate Congress will notice the words "global warming" before they perceive the health threat.
I do not "believe" that humans evolved from earlier primates, which evolved from earlier organisms, and so on back a few billion years. That is what the evidence shows; it takes no particular effort to "believe" it. Do you really believe that the visible universe is only 6,000 light-years in radius, and that God is deceiving us by making it look like some stars are millions and billions of light-years away? Or that He is deceiving us by planting evidence of geological and biological evolution in the earth around us and even in the genetic material of every living organism?
Oh, I *do* believe God about the physical nature of the universe, since He shows it to me every time I look. When I construct a phylogenetic tree that shows a very specific evolutionary relationship and progression between closely related viruses, I believe that evidence. When I test the laws of physics and find them to be absolute and inviolable, I believe that evidence. The universe behaves according to the eternal and inviolable laws that God imposed on it, not according to the words of a moral lesson written a few thousand years ago by fallible men trying to understand God's will. What I most emphatically do NOT believe is that God is a trickster who took great care to plant evidence of an old earth, an older universe, and the process of evolution (at all levels, not just biological).
Evolution is not fundamental to biology, sorry. People like Pasteur (who believed in creation) are far more important (dare I say infinitely more important) to the development of biology than people such as Darwin.
Evolution is absolutely fundamental to biology, in much the same way that atomic theory is fundamental to chemistry or electromagnetic theory is fundamental to physics. Like any scientific theory, the theory of evolution is a predictive description of observed facts that helps to drive research by giving scientists the tools they need to make experimentally testable hypotheses. Understanding the process of evolution, the process described in the theory, is crucial in order to conduct biological research and to interpret the results.
Pasteur worked at a time when molecular biology was not even an idea, and the concept of hereditary genetics (itself a consequence of evolution) was barely in its infancy. Sure, he was able to develop a process to make milk safe to consume and a treatment for rabies. The fact that he did not consider the evolutionary components of his work does not mean they do not exist. I think he used rabbits to develop the rabies treatment; if it were not for the common genetic heritage (a consequence of evolution) of rabbits and humans, no treatment developed in rabbits would work on humans.
Evolution takes place through the accumulation of mutations in the genetic material (DNA for most organisms). The more time goes by, the more such mutations take place. The fact is that you could choose any gene you want, at random, and use it to construct a phylogenetic tree. And that tree will closely match the phylogenetic tree constructed using a different gene. And both trees will match phylogenies constructed using taxonomic methods. If there were no evolution, you would not be able to construct any of these trees, and you certainly would not be able to compare trees constructed independently, using different methods to come up with the same results. BTW, one feature of science is that when it is a genuine reflection of reality, different methods lead to the same results.
You are talking about your specialty, but your are not talking evolution you are talking adaptation and mutations. You are simply mutating something into a specialized virus but it is not the same as changing into a whole new species.
I doubt you are purposely confusing the issue, but you are not proving evolution exists. There are plenty of good scientists that understand exactly what you are talking about and dismissing it as true transformation of species.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/04/genetics_is_too071621.html
There goes that false comparison between atomic theory and evolutionary theory again. Never mind heredity being an observable biological process, which makes it independent from so-called evolution with its roots in paganism; Gregor Mendel is far more important to the study of heredity than Darwin or even Ronald Fisher (the eugenicist).
Pasteur was the anti-abiogenesis scientist who demonstrated that life only comes from life. Vaccination has nothing to do with so-called evolution either; rabbits stay rabbits, cows stay cows and humans stay human, and the fact that all have deoxyribonucleic acid in their cells (and that viral microorganisms attack said DNA across a very broad spectrum of species of flesh being) does not indicate any commonality in terms of the supposed existence of a single common “ancestral” being that was neither rabbit, cow or human.
Do a search on YouTube as such videos are very enlightening.
Um... "adaptation" is, as I have already explained, a synonym for evolution invented by "creationist" con-men to talk about evolution without actually saying the word. Mutations are changes in the DNA (or RNA in many viruses). Every new organism contains mutations in its genetic material that were not present in its parents. The accumulation of those mutations over generations is the process of evolution. A new species arises when a group splits off from the main population and each of the two groups accumulate a different set of mutations. Eventually, the two groups become too genetically different to interbreed, and are deemed separate species.
I doubt you are purposely confusing the issue, but you are not proving evolution exists. There are plenty of good scientists that understand exactly what you are talking about and dismissing it as true transformation of species.
The science is solid, but you choose to dismiss it for emotional reasons. I am not surprised that you reference "plenty of good scientists (who dismiss the evolutionary processes)" by linking to a "creation science" website. You cannot find real science at an agenda- and profit- driven junk science website. There are actually not life scientists who reject evolution--you can count so-called creationist scientists on one hand. If you want to find real science, you need to look at websites that real scientists use. The major legitimate medical science website is called PubMed (www.pubmed.org), and is a database that catalogs a majority of the peer-reviewed articles published world-wide.
The evidence for evolution, of course, is not limited to biology. It is found throughout the world and the visible universe. Scientists of all disciplines study it all the time--whether they look at a nebula out in space, the expansion of the universe, or study the geology of the earth, the evidence is ubiquitous.
Then computers don’t exist.
Marx was wrong.
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.