More scientists express doubts on Darwin

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | June 22, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern

[balrog666]

Does that apply to the number of distinct PhDs you claim? And the number of biotech companies you run?

And the number of genius level "uncles" one claims.

[Thatcherite]

Let me with all due humility propose Vade's Rule: "If you feel that you have to post your GPA (real or fictional), it's because you've been performing conspicuously below "IDIOT."

Does that apply to the number of distinct PhDs you claim? And the number of biotech companies you run?

Does it apply to the number of PhD's that you claim your uncle/brother-in-law/good-friend has?

[Thatcherite]

Damn, I didn't read to the end of the thread.

[Virginia-American]

It was a matter of weeks in the end concerning who got the credit for the completely discredited notion that Evolution is a fact.

Actually the fact of evolution had been recognized long before Darwin. That's why Lamarck, Buffon, et al had created theories of evolution. Darwin's insight was that the same process that breeders use is also happening maturally.

" until he recognized that other people could also read, and were ready to publish their own observations.

Wallace.

[GourmetDan]

'Argument from incredulity' was a retort that Dawkins popularized as a point of ridicule for creationists. I merely show that Dawkins didn't think through his 'insult' and it is easily explained that 'argument from incredulity' is nothing to be embarassed about, but argument from credulity should be.

Yes I do believe the earth is the center of the universe. There is no evidence to dispute the Biblical perspective and much to confirm it (Michelson-Morely, Sagnac Effect, Einstein's GR statement that 'you can consider the earth to be at rest because it appears to be at rest', uniform universe appearance no matter which direction we look, etc.)

The causes for disease are manifold. It is misleading to say 'the cause of disease' as though there is a single cause.

I believe that God created the universe and life ~ 6,000 yrs ago and that the universe is geocentric. I know of no *evidence* to the contrary and the *evidence* can certainly be interpreted in that context.

If you think you have some contrary evidence, present it and I will demonstrate where the evidence leaves off and the interpretation starts.

[GourmetDan]

I don't think you ever had a word in this conversation.

Just a smart remark that you could not back up.

And that's the last word.

[GourmetDan]

And you haven't even begun to address the substitution costs for the supposed 'beneficial' mutations that also need to move to fixation, in addition to the substitution costs for these supposed 'inactive viral infections'. It's all additive, you know and that's not in your favor.

And your 'exact match' has deteriorated to 'exactly consistent' before you presented your first reference. The most supportive articles I know of in the scientific literature only claim to be 'broadly consistent' w/ the phylogenetic 'tree'.

Do you know what you are talking about?

[Coyoteman]

I believe that God created the universe and life ~ 6,000 yrs ago and that the universe is geocentric.

Don't forget the global flood while you're at it.

[GourmetDan]

Yep, I'm down with with that as well.

[ml1954]

'Earth is the Center of the Universe' Placemarker...For future reference

[Coyoteman]

Yep, I'm down with with that [global flood] as well.

Sorry to hear that.

At what date do you place the global flood?

[GourmetDan]

I haven't given it a date.

[Coyoteman]

I haven't given it a date.

Any of these sound right for the global flood?

2252 BC -- layevangelism.com

2304 BC -- Answers in Genesis (+/- 11 years).

2350 BC -- Morris, H. Biblical Creationism. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993.

2370 BC -- TalkOrigins.com

3537 BC -- Setterfield (1999)

[GourmetDan]

Actually, this is the one I had in mind.

"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month — on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened." Gen 7:11

[Coyoteman]

You realize that if the date of the global flood is in the general range of 2500 BC, there are a lot of things that should be found in the historical and archaeological record that are not found.

[GourmetDan]

Whatever you say.

[Coyoteman]

Whatever you say.

OK, goodnight.

[GourmetDan]

Good night.

[Virginia-American]

And you haven't even begun to address the substitution costs for the supposed 'beneficial' mutations that also need to move to fixation, in addition to the substitution costs for these supposed 'inactive viral infections'. It's all additive, you know and that's not in your favor.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Do you mean the cost of extra DNA to duplicate? How much is it?

And your 'exact match' has deteriorated to 'exactly consistent' before you presented your first reference. The most supportive articles I know of in the scientific literature only claim to be 'broadly consistent' w/ the phylogenetic 'tree'.

As you correctly pointed out, "exact match" is inappropriate unless all the animals in question have had the relevant parts of their genomes sequenced; until then all you can say is that the sequence tree is a subtree of the phylogenetic tree.

The only exceptions I'm aware of is when the stretch of DNA with the genetic marker is deleted entirely. This is rare, and AFAIK, can be detected independently of the ERV.

Do you know what you are talking about?

I'm not a professional biologist, so I'm sure I'm missing a lot of the details, but I have read a lot about this stuff - it's quite fascinating.

[Seamoth]

Substitution cost, and no, I haven't heard about it in any of my biology courses.