Posted on 05/13/2004 10:27:11 AM PDT by Junior
It seems logical that the virus would have got there along with the organism it is associated with that lives there. However that organism got there is how the virus got there. Without that living organism the virus can't replicate and go on for long. The only think interesting about this virus is that it appears to be heat resistant and most viruses are quite heat sensitive.
Did evolutionists predict uses for "junk" DNA, or DNA proof-reading?
Indeed some did. You don't think it was creationists that did the research to determine this stuff, do you?
"RNA-world" says that cellular life formed as parasites in the soup and ate it. Before then, the whole pond (or whatever) was something like one big organism.
The viruses today have survived by specializing, even as have the cellulars. Everything today is thoroughly modern.
No idea, but if we didn't predict something (this morning's DOW or whatever), what does that prove?
Yes, but their careers are in ruins and they are out begging on the streets.
"Will perform Polymerase Chain Reaction for food"
One of the joys of dealing with academics in general is that they've become so narrowly specialized that they have precious little idea of what's happening outside their own particular sub-sub-field. Not that this is anyone's fault in particular, that there are no more Renaissance Men these days - it's a hell of a lot of work keeping up with one's own field, let alone all the rest.
There are not thousands of scientific articles published each year - there are hundreds of thousands. Agricola indexes more than 800 journals dealing with agriculture and plant sciences alone. Ovid indexes more than a thousand journals in medicine and biomedical sciences. Ingenta - I've lost track, but they index 28,000 academic journals, so you can browse through and figure out how many of those are scientific journals. The IEEE INSPEC database indexes more than 3400 scientific and technical journals - to quote them, their database consists of "over 7 million bibliographic records and is growing at the rate of 350,000 records each year."
Most of it's flying under your radar, so you don't notice it - the vast majority of that stuff is not of interest to the vast majority of the human race, because it's not their particular specialty. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Believe me, if you knew where to look, you would be up to your reading glasses - and way beyond - in scientific articles.
Recently, a discovery was made where the scientists had originally dismissed a gene as an antifreeze-protein pseudogene (5a), but in reality it was crucial to the animal's survival.
I see in your story where a previously overlooked protein was discovered. What are you saying about pseudogenes and where is your source? Pseudogenes do not code proteins.
*snipped from: Nature 429, 153 (13 May 2004); doi:10.1038/429153a*
“The two proteins differ slightly in their amino-terminal sequence and amino-acid composition. At the time of its discovery, the 5a gene was dismissed as an antifreeze-protein pseudogene, largely because the protein it encodes would have been grossly different from type I AFP and had never been detected in the flounder”So that is proof that scientists have been doing science wrong:
It proves that evolutionists and researchers have severely underestimated the complexity and incredible design of humans and animals for a long time now. If they would have approached their research with a different perspective, who knows what they may have discovered by now. Cures for diseases, etc.
Acceptance of literal Genesis by Marshall and Fletcher would have led them straight to this elusive protein? How?
The "perspective" doesn't necessarily have to be "literal Genesis" - but it should be something other than "the body is full of useless relics of the past" (i.e., "junk"). If their going-in position(s) had been "this must have an obscure, or yet to be discovered function" - then perhaps science would have progressed further, faster.
And yet it progressed, despite their dismissal of design.
However, since most scientists accept billions of years and thousands of beneficial 'accidents' as being responsible for themselves - what's a few more years in waiting to discover another use of a perceived piece of "junk?", eh?
How can you be so blind to the flood of new pharmaceuticals, medical techniques, cures, and agricultural enhancements flowing from the productive minds of creation scientists?
I started to compile a list of same last week - in order to avoid wasting paper, I found it fit handily on the back of an old postage stamp I had lying around...
Announcement: There were no horses harmed as a result of the last two posts.
Must you always attack "Creation Scientists?" I don't even know one. I don't even know if there is such a thing. There are a number of scientists who believe in God - many have patents. Are you suggesting that only Atheists make discoveries?
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.