Posted on 09/13/2006 3:52:47 PM PDT by DannyTN
No, of course he doesn't realize that. He's operating on pure arrogance and dogma, not knowledge and analysis.
What garbage.
Learn to tell the truth and then lecture me on what does or doesn't make a good saint.
So I'm a liar and St. Augustine's, The Literal Meaning of Genesis is garbage.
OK.
I think that about does it for the night.
I will check back later to see if this thread evolves or continues to degenerate (I may answer any worthy pings for a few minutes, but they better be good). Night all!
You mean like the parts about the Tree of Knowledge, the talking snake, the Great Flood and the Tower of Babel. Those are pretty obvious, I agree.
Ichneumon, you haven't the first clue whatsoever on this topic, yet you keep beating your chest trying to convince us all that you've been intimately familiar with it from all sides.
St Augustine placemarker...
Alleles and non-coding sequences can 'piggyback' on other alleles.
ERVs/Retroviruses can be inserted into non-coding sequences as well as coding sequences.
Adaptation to a changing environment is seldom an all or nothing situation. At any given time there are more than two available alleles at a given loci.
Many phenotypes are changed through selection types other than directional selection. There is also disruptive selection, and stabilizing selection. All three are components of natural selection. There are other selection forces such as sexual selection which do not place the population into a dilemma.
Substitution cost applies primarily where a changed environment puts extreme pressure on the population resulting in a severe drop in population. In the cases where pressures are less intense, or there is a gradation of efficacy in available alleles, the drop in population is nowhere near as precipitous.
Even if the population is dramatically reduced in number, population bottlenecks need not be fatal for the population. Not all bottlenecks result in a founder effect and not all founder effects produce deleterious homozygous alleles.
To seriously contend that substitution cost is a severe problem for evolution you have to ignore a large number of different paths which lead to fixation of an allele. You also have to assume that all changes in environment will be severe enough to quickly reduce the population size.
Just as a note, according to Joe Felsenstein he has solved Haldane's dilemma.
BTW, retroviruses are only considered different from ERVs in the generation in which they first occur. Once a retrovirus gets passed to a new generation it becomes an ERV. This refutes your claim that there is a significant difference between the two.
You say so.
It doesn't matter what you or I say. The above applies without our "help." This quote from Augustine has been trotted out many a time by those who reject the accuracy and authority of the biblical texts. Like you said, "Learn to tell the truth and then lecture . . . ."
Don't apologize, I also aced my biology classes.
Gee, is that where you "learned" that one has to "reject God" to see the validity of evolutionary biology? Where did you take this biology class, the same trailer park where Kent Hovind got his "degree"?
If someone as ignorant of biology as you are "aced" biology, then my wife is Morgan Fairchild.
This explains a lot about your posts.
OK. the observations can be explained by a creation model. I admit it.
No, it's a Crumb.
You sir know NOTHING about me, yet want to come on these boards and deny what I've posted about my personal life.
This proves you will post ANY accusation, with NO proof whatsoever against those who disagree with you.
You are showing what a shameful person you really are with this kind of nonsense.
Biology was one of my TOP classes.
Those seem obvious to me. Tell me, what standard do you use to delineate which parts of Scripture are "obviously" allegorical? If a strong contradiction to everything we know about the physical world isn't a good defining factor, I have to honestly wonder what is.
"What does anything mean? What does life mean? Is there a beginning. Is there an end?
No. Why do you keep bringing up what Darwin did or did not know when the focus of these threads is the discussion of modern theories?
What Darwin did or did not know 150 years ago has been supplanted by modern knowledge which has been incorporated into the SToE. When we argue the veracity of evolution (and science) we are arguing modern knowledge levels, yet you keep bringing up points about Darwin that have no relevance.
Thank you! A TRUE believer.
These people don't realize how short a time they have before facing God with the nonsense they post.
Ooooh, I think you hit a nerve with the trailer park reference. Must have hit close to home.
No, you give him too much credit -- in order to make such a false assertion as he has you don't have to ignore some things and assume others at all, you just have to be a clueless anti-evolutionist who strings buzzphrases together without the first clue what they mean or if they're applicable to the topic under discussion.
Substitution cost doesn't apply to neutral ERVs, period. But I'd just love to see GourmetDan attempt to make a case that it does (as opposed to his habit of simply asserting it and declaring, 'so there!') That would be one of the funniest things ever on these threads, like watching a pigeon try to prove the Pythagorean theorem.
Come on, GourmetDan, show us just how competent you anti-evolutionists are! Show us your work! Heck, man, even just try something ridiculously elementary, like telling us whether the rate at which ERVs fix in the population depends on population size, and why (and in which direction)... Go for it, son!
Jorge, feel free to pitch in on that question too, because since you "aced" biology, in your own words, this should be a *really* trivial question for you to answer, if you can spare any time away from your important job of beating your chest, declaring people who disagree with you insane, and telling us for the 45th time that you "aced" your college courses...
If these people pass the changes on to their descendants, how can you deny a genetic change?
And this is what evolution is, a change in the genomes of a population from one generation to the next. Evidence for these changes is everywhere.
Then add a few thousand, hundred thousand, or million years, stir well, and presto: macroevolution!
Its not rocket science!
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.