Biology textbook hearings prompt science disputes [Texas]

Knight Ridder Newspapers ^ | 08 July 2003 | MATT FRAZIER

[gore3000]

What sort of research would you propose to show that the defective gene needed for vitamin c synthesis in the great apes and people really serves a purpose

You are still on this after I reminded you a few hundred posts ago that the claim had been disproven and the author had been dishonest as we had discussed months ago. The whole argument on this by evolutionists is very dishonest. First of all, it is not just men and monkeys that do not have the ability to produce vitamin c, it also does not work on guinea pigs. Evolution is about descent, are you claiming we descended from guinea pigs now?????????

Here is the post where I completely destroyed this vitamin c nonsense - it was addressed to you:

---

I have never denied that chimps and humans cannot produce vitamin c. However, the devil is in the details:

It is interesting to note that most animals produce their own vitamin C. Man, primates (apes, chimps, etc.) and guinea pigs have lost this ability.
From: How Stuff Works

Hmm, your sources did not mention the guinea pigs did they? Guess man and chimp descended from guinea pigs? Are guinea pigs the missing link? Seems evo 'scientists' are very selective. They only 'remember' what serves their purposes. But wait, it gets better:

Actually, the LGGLO pseudogene (an inactivated Vitamin C synthesis gene) has been found in one human so far and no apes, according to Edward Max, but in his essay he predicts that it should be found in apes, too.
From: Shared Errors in DNA

So, it seems someone claims that this is not true, and cites an evolutionist as saying that this claim is an assumption not fact. So while to me, this might be credible enough, to you an assertion by a Christian alone would not be. So, we must dig a little deeper:

if primates closely related to humans have the SAME crippling mutations in their LGGLO pseudogenes as we see in the human pseudogenes, this finding would support the evolutionary model. As I pointed out, the data on this question are not yet available for the LGGLO pseudogenes, but in other shared pseudogenes identical crippling mutations clearly favor evolution
From: Response to Plaisted

So it seems that the evolutionists have been found lying again (and by this I do not mean you Virginia, or Jennyp or anyone else here - this garbage is all over the internet). Max in his original article, while not outright saying that men and chimps shared the exact same mutation in the exact same pseudogene went into a long and very contrived discussion which to most laymen would indicate that such was a proven fact. In other words, he clearly was trying to deceive and clearly deceived many. (the original article is here ). So much for vitamin c. Another evolutionist snow job disproven.

BTW this whole nonsense started - as usual - in that fountain of evolutionist disinformation - TalkOrigins

---

Somehow, I had a feeling that you would bring this up again. Evolutionists have a way of continuing to use 'evidence' which has already been disproven as Wells shows quite well in Icons where the Haeckel fraud, the moth fraud and the finches that are not a species are still claimed as proof of evolution decades after they have been shown to be false.

[Aric2000]

The mystery is solved gentleman.

The thread was great throughout the day, besides FC's incessant haiku, otherwise it went great up to this point.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/943130/posts?q=1&&page=3607#3607

And it happened to coincide with one poster getting back onto the thread after a hard day of not disrupting EVO/ID threads.

Mystery solved, thread went downhill from that post, So tomorrow, we can talk and debate with great fanfare and fun, but when 2:30 comes around, it will be time to turn on the VI and be done with it.

Virtual Ignore is indeed our friend!!

[ALS]

keep on hanging yourself

tick tock

[f.Christian]

mad doggy bite the mail man placemaker !

[gore3000]

Did you read the article

No, I read the drivel posted here, it was one insult after another which had nothing to do with the truth of the points made in the Wells article. The Haeckel drawings were a FRAUD. They have been proven by scientists to be a fraud. He did not do any research at all, he just drew them to defraud.

Further, the garbage spouted from it about development of species following the evolutionary tree is absolutely false and no decent scientist would make such a claim any more. It is a lie, it was never science and evolutionists are still 100 years after the fraud was shown to be a fraud lying about it.

[f.Christian]

pride goeth big before bad fall placemaker !

[ALS]

tick tock

[f.Christian]

Grow a brain placemaker !

1Cor.13

[1] Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
[2] And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
[3] And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
[4] Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
[5] Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
[6] Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
[7] Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
[8] Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
[9] For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
[10] But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
[11] When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
[12] For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
[13] And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.


3,221 posted on 07/15/2003 8:56 PM PDT by f.Christian (evolution vs intelligent design ... science3000 ... designeduniverse.com --- * architecture * !)

[f.Christian]

Worry about yourself placemaker !

Galatians...chapter 5

13] For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
[14] For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
[15] But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.
[16] This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh.
[17] For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
[18] But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
[19] Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
[20] Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
[21] Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
[22] But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
[23] Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
[24] And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
[25] If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
[26] Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.

---

Gal.6

[1] Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.
[2] Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.


3,231 posted on 07/15/2003 9:03 PM PDT by f.Christian (evolution vs intelligent design ... science3000 ... designeduniverse.com --- * architecture * !)
[

[PatrickHenry]

The thread was great throughout the day, besides FC's incessant haiku ...

That's not haiku. It's random misfires in the cerebellum.

otherwise it went great up to this point [post 3607]. And it happened to coincide with one poster getting back onto the thread after a hard day of not disrupting EVO/ID threads.

I don't know. It's still so difficult. The moderators are struggling with it but they just can't figure it out. If only there were at least one shred of evidence to guide them.

Mystery solved, thread went downhill from that post, So tomorrow, we can talk and debate with great fanfare and fun, but when 2:30 comes around, it will be time to turn on the VI and be done with it.

That's 5:30 Eastern Standard Time. No one gets home at that hour execept male nurses. Shift-change at the hospital is around 3:00, then perhaps a long commute.

Virtual Ignore is indeed our friend!!

Indeed.

[f.Christian]

backfire banning placemaker !

[gore3000]

Nothing there disproving my statements, in fact more debasing of mankind from the atheist and advocate of mass murder of entire races. There is no way for a decent human being to make such a statement or for a decent human being to fail to condemn the statement and the author of it.

[f.Christian]

I don't know. It's still so difficult. The moderators are struggling with it but they just can't figure it out. If only there were at least one shred of evidence to guide them.

Pray to darwin !

[ALS]

tick tock

[gore3000]

Where? Give me ONE example where Darwin expressed APPROVAL of genocide

The full letter was posted by your friend js1138 in Post# 3352 . You saw it. He was not speaking of ascendancy he was speaking of mass murder - so that you folks do not get too confused here is the passage in question with the specific word that proves me correct so that you can read it without glasses:

The more civilised so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.

[f.Christian]

I don't know. It's still so difficult. The moderators are struggling with it but they just can't figure it out. If only there were at least one shred of evidence to guide them.

... hhhhhhhhhmmmmmmm ...

Atheism -- statist -- social engineering -- evolving govt -- MILITANT flaming liberal ...

that's a real hard one !

[f.Christian]

grown up people should fight their own battles and ...

not like crybabies ---

try to have the administration moderators ---

do it for them !

If you can't stand the heat in the kitchen ...

get out !

[gore3000]

All quotes from the 6th edition of The Origin except as noted.

Interesting that you had to go to the 6th edition to find something that was an experiment. They do not appear in the first which I checked (and am sure you did too).

Let's look at how deals with science:

Great as are the differences between the breeds of the pigeon, I am fully convinced that the common opinion of naturalists is correct

Hmm, in spite of the evidence, I will stick to my story. That's science?????????

We can understand these facts, on the well-known principle of reversion to ancestral characters,

Which of course disproves evolution because new mutatants would perforce have to breed with those who do not have the mutation. This makes evolution impossible. However, he of course totally disregards it.

Furthermore, we know from dogs that even the most thoroughly bred ones do indeed revert to form even after uncounted generations. So whether the 'experiment' was true or false (and my bet is that it was false) fact is that it does not disprove that breeds do revert to norm and that such behavior does disprove evolution.

What the above shows is that Darwin was no scientist. He misused science at every point and ignored the facts when they did not serve his theory. So no, he was not a scientist and calling him that is an insult to all honest scientists.

[js1138]

So according to the link you supplied, the petrified forest is about 200 million years old.

[gore3000]

Oh, yes. It's apparently a "fact" as far as gore3000 is concerned that Darwin wasn't a scientist.

Yes, of course, piling on the insults while you know I am not around to respond. Pretty filthy mode of arguing I would call it. Your reply is in post# 3698 and no, Darwin was not a scientist. To be a scientist you have to be honest and Darwin as I show was completely impervious to contrary evidence.

Further, let's look at this 'scientist's' tools:

His three foot rule was old and battered, the common property of the household; the seven-foot deal rod used in measuring plants had been roughly calibrated by the village carpenter; while for millimeter measurements he used paper rules. His weighing scales were faulty, and is chemical balance dated from his childhood experiments with his brother in the garden shed. For liquid-capacity measurements he used an apothecary's measuring glass, roughly and unevenly graduated. He had two micrometers which gave differing results, and took his equivalence of inches and millimeters from an old book where as one of his children later discovered, it was incorrectly given."
From: Gertrude Himmelfarb, "Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution", Elephant Paperbacks, 1996, pp 144-145.

No, he was not a scientist.