Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Evolving Peppered Moth Gains a Furry Counterpart
NY Times ^ | 6-17-03 | CAROL KAESUK YOON

Posted on 06/17/2003 7:05:07 PM PDT by Pharmboy


H. E. Hoekstra
Evolution has allowed some rock pocket mice,
pictured on light and dark rocks, to produce
distinct fur that helps disguise them.

In the deserts of the Southwest, among the towering saguaros and the spiny cholla cactuses, rock pocket mice hop and dash in search of a meal of seeds. But while these mice may seem to scamper haphazardly across the desert floor, their arrangement in nature is strikingly orderly.

Nearly everywhere these mice are sandy-colored, well camouflaged as they scurry across beige-colored outcrops. But in some areas, ancient lava flows have left behind swaths of blackened rock. There the same species of rock pocket mouse has only dark coats, having evolved an entirely distinct and, for their surroundings, equally well-disguised pelage.

Now, in a recent study in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers report identifying the gene responsible for the evolution of dark coat coloration in these mice, pinpointing the DNA sequence changes that underlie this classic story of evolutionary change, the cute and furry counterpart to the famous case of the peppered moth.

Researchers say the study is the first documentation of the genetic changes underlying an adaptive change where the evolutionary forces were natural. Scientists point out that other well-known cases involve evolution caused by humans; some have suggested that those changes may be atypical of natural evolutionary change, since they have typically involved intense, directed pressures destroying most of a population, like the spraying of pesticides or the application of antibiotics.

"This work is very important," said Dr. Mike Majerus, an evolutionary geneticist at Cambridge University, who was not part of the study. "Here man is just not involved. The sandy and lava flow substrates are entirely natural phenomena."

Other well-studied examples of human-driven adaptive change include the evolution of pesticide resistance in insects after widespread spraying and the increase in the numbers of dark-winged forms compared with light-winged forms of the peppered moth in the United States and England after industrialization turned air sooty and polluted.

Dr. Michael W. Nachman, a population geneticist, along with colleagues at the University of Arizona, Dr. Hopi E. Hoekstra and Susan L. D'Agostino, studied mice living on Arizona's Pinacate lava flow in Arizona and on light-colored rocks nearby. The researchers were able to take advantage of decades of meticulous work in which other scientists identified some 80 genes that affected coat color in laboratory mice.

On close examination, the light-colored rock pocket mice could be seen to have a type of hair coloration similar to standard, sandy-colored laboratory mice. In this pattern, known as agouti, the hair is black at the base, yellow in the middle and black again at the tip. The dark-colored rock pocket mice had completely dark hairs.

Researchers knew that mutations in a few well-known coat coloration genes in laboratory mice could cause such complete darkening of the hair, and they began by looking at two genes known as agouti and Mc1r. When they looked at DNA sequences in light and dark mice, changes in the agouti gene did not appear to be associated with light-colored fur versus dark-colored. Still, the researchers found that a certain cluster of mutations at Mc1r could be found in every dark-colored mouse.

"It's a textbook story," Dr. Nachman said. "Now we have all the pieces of the puzzle together in a natural setting."

Dr. Nachman noted that while the new study points to the Mc1r gene as the key to turning mice dark on the Pinacate lava flow, the team also found that dark mice on another lava flow in New Mexico did not share those mutations.

"So the same dark color has evolved independently in the two different populations," he said, "through different genetic solutions to the same evolutionary problem." Dr. Nachman said changes in another gene, perhaps the agouti gene, could be responsible for dark coloration in the New Mexico's Pedro Armendaris lava flow.

One could easily imagine that coloration would be of no consequence to the rock pocket mice, as they are nocturnal, darting about under the desert night sky. But researchers, working early in the last century, released light and dark mice on light and dark backgrounds in an enclosure at night and found that owls, a major predator of mice, could easily spot a mouse on a mismatched background.

Dr. Nachman noted, however, that these early researchers did not use rock pocket mice in their study, but instead used a species in which the dark and light forms were actually much less distinct.

As a result, he said, "we think the owls are discriminating even more strongly in our species." He said tiny bits of rock pocket mouse were often found in pellets at owl roosts.

Dr. Majerus said many kinds of animals showed light and dark forms, from deer mice to squirrels and chipmunks. There are even black ladybugs.

"A lot of the dark forms show an association with a particular type of substrate they're on, or the frequency of burning and charring of the trees in the woodlands," he said, noting that it would be interesting to do genetic studies in other animals, to see how many genetic solutions these other animals have come up with to turn dark.

But while many dark forms are abundant and can be studied at scientists' leisure, Dr. Majerus said that of the peppered moth was slowly disappearing.

So while there is nearly unanimous praise for the increasingly clean air in industrialized regions of the United States and Britain, there may be, at least for some scientists, a downside. "We've got about 15 or 16 years," Dr. Majerus said, "before those black forms, if they continue to disappear at the current rate, disappear completely."


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Miscellaneous; US: New Mexico
KEYWORDS: biology; crevolist; evolution; survival
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 301-302 next last
To: VadeRetro
You seem to have dropped all scientific pretension in favor of the ALS school of japing and mocking for the Lord as currently practiced on FR. I approve, as there's a certain unintentional honesty in the approach.

Their words betray what lies in their hearts.

201 posted on 06/21/2003 7:36:34 AM PDT by balrog666 (When in doubt, tell the truth. - Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
trollish "japing and mocking" placemarker
202 posted on 06/21/2003 8:07:41 AM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: jennyp; PatrickHenry; CDHart; the_doc; Jerry_M; RnMomof7; BibChr; Polycarp
it's hard for humans to see them way up there in the branches of trees ~~ Posted by jennyp to gore3000 On News/Activism 06/20/2003 1:07 AM PDT #144 of 199

It is hard, isn't it. It's hard for us Humans to see way up in the branches of the trees.

In a cynical-presbyterian sense, that's what I really enjoy the most about Randian-Objectivist Atheist Libertarians. Forgive me my cultural-chauvinistic smugness but... in terms of your cosmology (not your Individual Persons), y'all are writing your own philosophical Death Warrant.

It's not personal, mind you. On a personal basis, I actually love the Atheist Libertarians. In fact, I actually think that many Atheist Libertarians do a much better job of keeping the second Great Commandment of Jesus, than do many American "Social Conservatives".

The average American "Social Conservative" may pretend to Love God. The average Atheist Libertarian doesn't even claim to. But at least the average Atheist Libertarian won't try and knock down my fence and invade my house if he personally disapprived of my drink or my smoke or my music or my dance or my guns or my worship or my private vices. I can't trust the average American "Social Conservative" to offer the same Charity.

In short, I might prefer the average American "Social Conservative" as a fellow Church-Man to keep me honest, but I think I'd prefer the average Atheist Libertarian as a Property Neighbor. In fact, unlike your typical FReeper, I actually like the Atheist Libertarians... they are (in many cases) Smart and Interesting people. I'd like to see them Repent. I'd like to see them be Saved. They're not Enemies to me; "Jesus came not to save the Righteous, but the Sinners". Of whom I am the worst.

But in terms of Cosmology, I still think that the Libertarianism of the Atheist-Objectivists is downright hilarious. Let's begin with this -- Many Atheist-Objectivists, given the basic Rationality of the Randian system of Interpersonal Relations (which mirrors the "Golden Rule", the basic rationality of Biblical interpersonal relations, but never mind), can't imagine why so many of their Rationalist Comrades would have embraced Soviet Communism. Is it not, by its very nature, Rationally Nonsensical?

For the life of me, I can't imagine why Rational Atheists wouldn't embrace Soviet Communism. Or at least, any Anti-Church Totalitarian Ideology they could latch onto.

Lemme 'Splain -- no ideology can survive without its organic foundation. Atheistic Objectivism -- as with any sort of Atheistic philosophy -- depends upon Evolutionism and the Negation of God for its continuity. Unlike other Atheistic philosophies which reject the Individual (the Imago Dei), Objectivism celebrates the Individual (the Imago Dei), and so ends up with an Ethical Code very analogous to the "Ten Commandments without God" -- Don't Murder your Neighbor, Don't Steal from him, Don't Defraud him, Don't conspire to adulterate his marriage-contract, etc. But they are still trying to do it without God.

Personally, they may make very good and non-oppressive neighbors, if they follow their Objectivist Beliefs. Philosophically however, their Objectivist Beliefs are organically founded upon Evolutionism and the Negation of God -- which is why, paradoxically, Libertarianism will be ultimately antithetical to the organic foundation of their philosophy.

Libertarianism is the abolition of at least 90% of all State Functions, Domestic and Worldwide, with most of the remaining 10% devolved to State, if not Local levels.

Many American Church-Men fear Libertarianism. I do not. I advocate it. I want it Sooner rather than Later; Yesterday, if possible. Here's why:

This is why Libertarianism in America is fundamentally antithetical to the Advance of Evolutionism. How many kids does the average Atheist couple pro-create? And how many Publik Skooled Athiests win the National Bees (spelling, geography, history, take your pick -- Christian Homeschoolers always win)

It's a Natural Selection thang.

Evolutionism -- like a penned-up, over-bred, genetically altered Milk Cow -- is an artificial organism which cannot survive without the artificial support of External Feeding: except in this case it's not the Private Dairy Market -- it's State Support, financed by Taxpayers, in the State Indoctrination Warehouses called the Publik Skools.

If we were to entirely break off the shackles of the State, just look at the numbers:

By supporting Libertarianism, Evolutionist Objectivists are signing their own philosophical Death Warrants. The "Social Conservatives" may want to kill you off, or at least silence you -- their aims are Un-Jesus-Like, but at least they'll never succeed.

"Christian Libertarians" have a far more subversive action programme in mind. We don't want to OutLaw or Persecute Evolutionists -- we are just chomping at the bit to be set free from the chains of the State, so we can Out-Breed and Out-Educate Evolutionism as the fundamentally inferior social Meme that it is.

Without State Support for Evolutionism -- It's a Natural Selection thang.

203 posted on 06/21/2003 8:33:59 AM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian (We are Unworthy Servants; We have only done our Duty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

PLACEMARKER
204 posted on 06/21/2003 8:56:53 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Reason: Mankind's friend and mysticism's mortal enemy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Fallacy of "inevitable victory."
205 posted on 06/21/2003 9:27:32 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
...so we can Out-Breed and Out-Educate Evolutionism as the fundamentally inferior social Meme that it is.

And this disproves the theory of evolution, eh?
If this is true then I don't want to know what Muslims outbreeding Christian Europeans proves.

Of course we should always keep in mind that:
The reproduction rate of a meme is not significantly correlated with its correspondence to reality - and neither is the alleged life-transforming effect of accepting the meme. - HRG

206 posted on 06/21/2003 9:57:41 AM PDT by BMCDA (The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa. - R. A. Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; the_doc
Wondered where you've been, Uriel!

Hey whazzat... my old call-sign. ;-)

Shucks, I've been around. I hang out less on the "Political" threads now that all sorts of "extreme radicalism" have been castigated as heresy.

It's not that I can't handle the Flame Wars (always could, always will)... I'm just bored with the diminution of Classical Debate and Reason in general. Free Republic is more "popular" than it used to be... it's just not as intelligent.

I used to Hone my Skills here. Now it's more like a heroin junkie getting my occasional "fix" when I feel like it.

Or maybe... I've just become a Curmudgeon in my young age. ;-) AT any rate, when I participate at all, I tend to gravitate towards the Religion Forum. Theology, the "Queen of Sciences", still permits the black-and-white rigors of debate... when the Moderators (God bless them, every one) so allow.

Actually, the shock of discovery I felt a few years ago came from realizing that all creationists argue and reason as you do.

Bollocks and Balderdash. I like to think that I am at least twice as informed as the average Creationist (or for that matter, the average Publik Skooled Evolutionist) -- excepting those many PhD's whose research I merely suckle, like unto a piglet. And, whether or not I like to admit it, at least ten times as arrogant.

Ergo, Your scurrilous equivalence fails on both counts.

All mammals have hollow bones. Appalling ignorance even for a knuckle-dragging YEC. Your bones and mine contain hollows full of marrow, where the blood cells and various lymphocytes are formed.

More Bollocks and Balderdash, Vade. There is a definite physical distinction between the Bones of Bats and those of other Mammals in terms of structural constitution. If you don't care to admit it, Next thing I know you'll be telling me that every Life Form is hollow, given that 99.9% of the Atom is Empty Space (which is, strictly speaking, True). But that wasn't what I was talking about, and you know it. As you even (must I observe, shamelessly?) admit in your following:

Well, I suppose it's "easily accountable" enough, except that you never bothered to answer my point that structural bone fragility does our hypothetical Ground-Rat no good whatsoever until he is light enough in structure to flap those... what, oversized arm-pits? You can't really say, I guess, as the Bat appears fully-formed in the fossil record... and get off the ground.

Because as long as our wanna-be Icarus Rat hasn't got the over-sized arm-pit flaps to take him soaring, structural bone fragility ain't much good to him. Except that he needs those lightweight bones to take off soaring, etc. etc.

You're trying to wave your hands in the air and proclaim, "easily accountable as part of the evolution toward flight", but that won't cut it. Until our wanna-be Icarus Rat is actually in the air -- fully-formed wings, lightweight bone structure and all -- there's never been an explanation proposed which declares that non-functional dragging skin flaps and reduced, but non-airworthy bone structure is any sort of "survival advantage".

Confuciusornis is a perfectly good answer to doc's dumb-dumbing on the impossibility of a thing having half a wing. Confuciusornis had a wing-claw thing which is exactly what doc says makes evolution impossible.

The hell it was. "The_doc" asked for a Bat Predecessor, and you offered him a Kentucky Fried Hoatzin, relatives of which can be found in South America today and which, even today, are NOT BATS (or for that matter, even Class Mammalia, if I really have to go over this again).

Look, lemme put this to you real simple -- claiming that Mammalia-class BATS had anything whatsoever to do with Confuciusornis Hoatzin-type BIRDS which allegedly dated from 100 Million years prior in a completely different Class of Phylum Chordata, is sorta like claiming that the Turks besieged Vienna in 1683 out of 3000-year repressed "Hittite Envy".

You'd be laughed out of Sociology class if you proposed such an idiocy. Don't let that happen to you. The Ronald McDonald Clown Make-Up is white and red and very happy, Vade. It's better than what you're trying to do to your credibility, as is.

207 posted on 06/21/2003 10:05:12 AM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian (We are Unworthy Servants; We have only done our Duty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Fallacy of "inevitable victory." 205 posted on 06/21/2003 9:27 AM PDT by VadeRetro

Presuming you still retain a basic grasp of English Literacy, Vade, you'll see that my post claimed nothing to be "inevitable".

Read it again. Slowly. Mouth the words out loud if you must.

I am simply observing that if the State Machine were to release to Creationist Parents the $7,000 per-year, per-child we spend subsidizing the Indoctrination Warehouses, then there would be little Demographic advantage enjoyed by at Evolutionist Sub-Culture which does kill off their own children, and a Creationist Sub-Culture which doesn't.

That's not a "Fallacy of Inevitability". It's an "If-Then" Proposition. Let me know if you need to scram up a few bucks for a Basic Logic 101 Text; I sometimes care to enlighten the... umm... "challenged".

At the Present Time, if I considered anything to be "inevitable", I would say that the State Machine will inevitably continue to subsidize the Evolutionist Warehouses on the backs of Genuine Producers, as with many other inherently inferior social Memes, Government-subsidized Failures which would be Out-Bred and Forgotten as useless relics -- without State Support.

208 posted on 06/21/2003 10:19:17 AM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian (We are Unworthy Servants; We have only done our Duty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

209 posted on 06/21/2003 10:23:59 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Reason: mysticism's mortal enemy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: BMCDA; the_doc
...so we can Out-Breed and Out-Educate Evolutionism as the fundamentally inferior social Meme that it is. ~~ And this disproves the theory of evolution, eh?

Of course not. In terms of a Truth Proposition, evolutionism is invalid on a prima facie basis, not on any question of "majority vote".

The elimination of Evolutionism by Out-Breeding and Private Education in a Non-Statist educational society has, in and of itself, nothing to do with a "Truth Proposition". It would simply be the replacement of an Artificial and Coercive State Construct in favor of a Natural and Voluntary Social Good.

210 posted on 06/21/2003 10:58:50 AM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian (We are Unworthy Servants; We have only done our Duty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Bludgeoning with how dumb you can be? What a surprise!

Doc offered a general-purpose objection to the evolution of fore-claws into wings. He said this:

It's because a half-formed wing is useful neither for flying nor running. This is devastating to the "gradual evolutionary change" theory.

This is not particular to rats becoming bats, which is just as well since rats and bats are not particularly related. (Rodents are not postulated as ancestral to bats.) Doc is making an argument that you can't get from A to C because B in between is neither fully A nor fully C and thus useless. However, "useless" does not follow from "being between A and C."

Gee! Somehow you missed that what a dinosaur can do, a tree-dwelling insectivore mammal can do. And being lightweight is already useful in an arboreal species which may have to crawl far out on the ends of branches, and maybe leap or glide from there. Here, for instance is a gliding lemur which has independently evolved a lot of bat-like characteristics without being a bat.

There is a definite physical distinction between the Bones of Bats and those of other Mammals in terms of structural constitution. If you don't care to admit it, Next thing I know you'll be telling me that every Life Form is hollow, given that 99.9% of the Atom is Empty Space (which is, strictly speaking, True).

Unsupported assertion, followed by silly strawmanning. I told you mammalian bones are all hollow. There are differences all over the place in degree of robustness, density, etc. You have not documented any difference in kind. Please provide a source for your assertions.

It's time to back up to something you said earlier in your post:

Bollocks and Balderdash. I like to think that I am at least twice as informed as the average Creationist ...

That's a low bar in itself. Even so, you're only doing about average. That you're impressed with TrueOrigins does not bode well for your hopes, either.

I also notice you've ignored the rest of my post, a considerable body of material refuting the very essence of your spastically flailing arguments. This of course allows you to reappear dumb as a stump tomorrow, trolling for suckers.

All as expected.

211 posted on 06/21/2003 12:09:15 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Read it again. Slowly. Mouth the words out loud if you must.

"Unt ze ultimate triumph VILL be OURSSSSSS!!!!"

212 posted on 06/21/2003 12:10:38 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
If your next stop is the Twilight Zone ... you might be my relief coming on.
213 posted on 06/21/2003 12:17:15 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
I've never heard of any evidence or biological/ecological principle that says that a breakaway subspecies or species has to be adapted to fewer environments than the original population was. It could just as easily be more.

Actually the principle is quite simple. The biological diversity of 1,000,000 individuals will always be larger than that of 100,000 of its members. When you split a group you therefore get less biological diversity any way you cut it. If in addition the cut off group has been selected for a specific trait then the traits being selected against will be lost. Such traits might have been useful at a future time when circumstances change again (as they always do).

214 posted on 06/21/2003 12:21:22 PM PDT by gore3000 (Intelligent people do not believe in evolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
OK, a flying lemur is not a lemur, but is in its own order, Dermoptera (skin-wings).
215 posted on 06/21/2003 12:29:40 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
... spastically flailing arguments.

Sir, your post is an insult to every rational spastic.

216 posted on 06/21/2003 12:54:48 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Reason: mysticism's mortal enemy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Since you're (so far) attempting to follow that discussion, here's where I got back to the_doc on the rest of his post.
217 posted on 06/21/2003 2:29:01 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Sir, your post is an insult to every rational spastic.

A "friendly fire" incident.

218 posted on 06/21/2003 2:30:27 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
That said, "True Origins" has only recently begun to discuss the Apolipoprotein Mutation issue -- their first reference to the subject is as of June 2003 (which, after all, is probably fair -- the TalkOrigins article which you cited only dates from April 2003. The Scientific Method wasn't built in a day). I look forward to their full examination of the Argument.

June 2003? Where is that? Their website says "last modified: 26 April 2003", and I can't find any reference to "lipoprotein" on the page.

219 posted on 06/21/2003 3:08:13 PM PDT by jennyp (http://crevo.bestmessageboard.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian

I shall, instead, advance a rather more subversive line of Argumentation -- if we adopt, for the sake of argument, the (theoretical) affirmation that the Apo-AIM mutation which (theoretically) increases the average life-span of elderly Humans who would otherwise die of Heart Disease -- what kind of Insanity causes you to imagine that this has increased the Overall Survivability of the Human Race?

Even if we ASSUME every good thing that is claimed therefore, the Apo-AIM Mutation is associated with a decreased risk of arteriosclerosis (clogged arteries), heart attack, and stroke -- diseases generally associated with the Elderly, at least 90%+ of the time, if not more.

This is not a Biologically GOOD thing. It is a Biologically BAD thing. Harmful Mutations come in a variety of baskets -- including the Demographic harm of over-populating the Species with an excessive weight of biologically non-contributing members. Such as the weight of biologically non-contributing members who no longer Work, and no longer Bear Children. And least you think I am advocating Euthanasia, Eugenics, or any such abominations -- I remind you in advance: My Christian Ethics breed an abhorrence to any such atrocities. I am simply making a demographic observation -- the Human Race (or any Bioligical Species) cannot long survive if over 50% of its Population is composed of biologically non-contributing members who no longer Work, and no longer Bear Children.

This is not a Biologically GOOD thing. It is a Biologically BAD thing. Harmful Mutations come in a variety of baskets -- including the Demographic harm of over-populating the Species with an excessive weight of biologically non-contributing members. As such -- even if the Apo-AIM mutation extends the life-span of biologically non-contributing members of the Species, how on Earth could you consider this a "beneficial" mutation in a Darwinist sense?

That is STUNNING. Gore3000 stuns me sometimes with his idiotic posts, but at least yours are stunning on a higher plane. :-)

By your logic, any mutation that extends a person's life past their reproductive years is a harmful mutation! That makes the very idea of a beneficial mutation just about impossible in principle!

OK, I guess a mutation that caused a mother to always produce twins instead of one baby at a time you'd concede was "truly beneficial". But you'd also have to claim that a mutation that made menopause instantly fatal would also be beneficial!

Now, having old people around is a good thing, or it's a bad thing, depending on the species. It's a bad thing for salmon, because the little fry aren't taught how to find their way back to their spawning area, so the old salmon are unnecessary. It's probably a bad thing for birds (once the young have left the nest.) It's apparently a bad thing for praying mantises. It's also a bad thing to have lots of old humans around in a socialist society, what with their constant demands for more government pensions & Social Security & Medicare, etc. etc. But in a free society, old humans have LOTS to contribute on balance. Our dominance over the Earth's biosphere came about precisely because human nature means our spectacular abilities as the rational, abstract-thinking, forward-looking animal. And old people, with their wisdom & free time, can be very valuable indeed. The details of what it means to be human mean a lot, and it's just wacky to ignore them.

So for you to claim that a life-enhancing, life-lengthening mutation is necessarily harmful, you have to disavow that which creates the Good: Our minds, which is necessary for humans (our species, remember!) to thrive. So in your zeal to defend the Faith against scientific facts, you've shot the Good in an ugly friendly-fire incident. My condolences, but it is, after all, an occupational hazard for creationist apologists.

220 posted on 06/21/2003 3:46:40 PM PDT by jennyp (http://crevo.bestmessageboard.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 301-302 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson