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


1 posted on 11/18/2005 6:58:47 PM PST by MRMEAN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: MRMEAN

I want a Flying Spaghetti Monster exhibit there.


2 posted on 11/18/2005 7:00:51 PM PST by Gordongekko909 (I know. Let's cut his WHOLE BODY off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Just in case ===> Placemarker <===
3 posted on 11/18/2005 7:06:08 PM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MRMEAN

So how did the first cell come about, with all it's complexities?... then explain to me how the first molecule came about, with all it's complexitites?... then go back to the very first atom... where did it come from.... Nothing? How do you get something from nothing? Well?


5 posted on 11/18/2005 8:11:05 PM PST by BigFinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MRMEAN

I still find it interesting how honest debate is derided for the sake of empty attacks. Darwin certainly would not have behaved the way his progenies have. The disingenuous response has been unbecoming scientists of any stripe and the dogma runs deep especially for those who want to take the path that others have also taken in the past with unsavory results and turn Darwin's respectable theory into a method of encouraging a sort of politics of human minimalism and veiled atheism.

How many times I've read the false assertion that humans are basically hairless chimps. It would not be so bad if this were an accurate factual representation of the research conducted at MIT, Havard, and Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis which made the claim in Nature that 98.77% of our genome is the same that of chimpanzees. This is the popular assertion and most don't have go much further than accept it or reject it.

I can see why the general public would not know better, they don't know that huge expanses of DNA are excluded from such comparisons as "junk DNA", nor do they know that humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes and chimps have 24 pairs though there is evidence of what is left of a centromere as if two chromosomes somehow fused. The critical thing which evolutionary scientists are aware but seldom bring up is that comparing gene coding sequences is much like comparing lists of functions in a computer program while many of the same functions are used in many different programs it is the way the functions are executed or in the case of genes how they are transcribed that matters. The genes may look similiar in chimpanzees and humans but the proteins they eventually code for can be very different.

There are approximately 250,000 difference proteins where as there are no more than 40,000 genes which helps one illustrate how insufficient comparing gene coding sequences alone can be when comparing two genomes. It is just inaccurrate to say human beings are 98.77% chimps, it is not factually true and even though those doing the research know that this is a false representation of their research we continue to see a concerted push in what appears to be an attempt to deceive the generally population into believing that humanity not only is only slightly different than common apeas but can not be expected to act much better.


6 posted on 11/18/2005 8:30:42 PM PST by Ma3lst0rm (If give a monkey a computer he will still prefer a banana and a girlfriend.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MRMEAN
Thankfully, though, voters in Dover, Penn., decided to oust the eight members up for re-election to the school board that had been sued for introducing into the biology curriculum the notion of intelligent design as a viable alternative to evolution.

Thankfully? Only politically motivated materialists would be so interested. I had to check to make sure this was an opinion piece (which it was), since so many political opinions are making it into "hard" journalism these days.

What scientists who start philosophizing about recent discoveries should realize is that the philosophy is no longer science and should not be presented as such. Whether it is about Lederman's view of particle physics, or Hawking's view on imaginary time. The books popularized on these ideas is not because of the science, it is because of the philosophy. These scientists should realize that what they are doing is not teaching science, but proselytizing their particular philosophy/religion to the public. The realm of popular philosophy has been squarely in the court of religion though, and while science has done a good job of pushing traditional religion out of the philosophical realm, they shouldn't start crying foul when the old guard starts pushing back.
8 posted on 11/18/2005 9:32:59 PM PST by dan1123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MRMEAN
Considering what they did to Galileo, da Vinci and others, you can understand his hesitation.
10 posted on 11/18/2005 10:01:06 PM PST by FFIGHTER (Character Matters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: From many - one.

check to see if thread evolves


11 posted on 11/19/2005 4:42:08 AM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MRMEAN

YEC INTREP


12 posted on 11/19/2005 9:40:41 AM PST by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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