Posted on 09/11/2008 9:55:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Sept 10, 2008 — Astrobiologist David Deamer believes that life can spontaneously emerge without design, but he thinks lay people are too uneducated to understand how this is possible, so he gives them the watered-down version of Darwin’s natural selection instead, which he knows is inadequate to explain the complexity of life. That’s what he seemed to be telling reporter Susan Mazur in an interview for the Scoop (New Zealand). Is the lay public really too dense for the deeper knowledge of how evolution works?...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
So what if some type of stress leads to an increase in bacterial mutations?
Is that necessarily a “good” thing? Apparently, like a lot of other things, it should be done in moderation. Otherwise, overdoing it leads to “development of cancer and other genetic disorders in higher organisms.” Not exactly a recipe for onward and upward evo.
I think what’s really phenomenal is that, despite furiously mutating in response to the no doubt innumerable stressful periods experienced over the supposed 3 billion years, bacteria are still bacteria.
So, how does your linked article further the case of macro-evolution?
Bad anlaogy. There's a lot more agreement among different scientific disciplines than simple that matter and energy exist. Biology and astrophysics may not overlap, but anything they publish that overlaps into other fields like chemistry or physics is subjet to review by those disciplines.
==So it’s OK for an evo to put the explanation for how we got here in lay people’s terms, even when he knows is inadepuate, but if God puts it in lay people’s terms in the Bible, then it can be mocked and derided for *scientific inaccuracy*, and stated that it’s wrong.
Excellent point. But there is a big difference. The Evos are holding back what the book of nature says about their so-called “theory” because it undermines their Darwinian faith.
Oh you’re under the impression I could care one way or another about this guy when it comes to the fact that I oppose censorship.
Well, once again, you’re mistaken.
While you’re at your fruitless exercises, maybe you can look up what your boy David Lee thinks about censorship?
Nahhh, nevermind.
Do you contend that epigenetic markers are not subject to mutation that can give rise to genetic variation that would be subject to selective pressure?
Do you know why some African cow herding tribes and most Northern Europeans have lactose persistence into adulthood when almost all other humans and all other mammals turn off the lactase gene after weening? Did you know that this turning off of lactose digestion after weening in mammals is due to epigenetics methylating a section proximal to the lactase gene?
So considering that all humans come from a common ancestor, how else did these epigenetic differences arise in different populations except by mutation of this epigenetic marker and natural selection that favored this trait in populations where adult milk drinking would be beneficial?
It’s threads like these, chock full of support for ridiculous unfounded criticisms of real science, that make me question voting republican.
hehehe...speaking of irony, how about the “science is supposed to be objective”...
with a complete straight face!?
I’ll finish that statement too...
science is supposed to be objective, AS DEFINED BY GODLESS LIBERALS WHILE ENFORCED BY LAW.
There.
Nope. I go out of my way to defend truth and even a kindergartner knows a marxist is right now and again.
I’d bet you’ve even heard a clock is right twice a day.
Well no I wouldn’t.
Well, Science has an explanation at the ready for why bacteria increase their mutation rate in response to stress, all you have is “so what?”. Hard to build up a system of reliable information on “so what?”.
Bacteria are still bacteria, they are also mitochondria and chloroplasts, they are enteric bacteria that we carry around in our gut to help us digest, bacteria are the natural fauna that cover our skin, bacteria are the reason why the first thing a newborn calf does is eat a piece of its mother's feces, so its own enteric bacteria culture can grow. Bacteria have evolved to occupy the most stressful conditions on earth, and have evolved to digest synthetic substances that were never present upon the Earth until humans invented them and mass produced them.
Every piece of evolutionary data needn't directly address the issue of “macroevolution” or common descent to show that evolution through natural selection of genetic variation is the mechanism whereby bacteria cultures adapt and evolve to stressful conditions.
But if your really interested in the data for common descent (or “macroevolution”) then check out ERV data. ERV’s are endogenous retroviral sequences that have incorporated into the genome. The interesting thing about ERV’s is that if you find one within a species’ genome that is very similar to an actual viral sequence it is likely only found within that species, or only in very closely related species EXACTLY as if it had incorporated itself into the genome very recently. And if you find an ERV sequence in a species’ genome that is highly degraded from the original viral sequence it is likely to be found in many different species in the same genus, EXACTLY as if it had incorporated itself a long time ago when all those species shared a common ancestor. Why would ERV’s form this system of ‘nested hierarchies’ other than common descent?
Once again Biology has an answer at the ready to explain this phenomenon, Creationist once again have no answer.
Not my boy. I merely quoted him calling one of his comrades a Marxist to show their common link and to expose the Marxists. Why are you so worked up about my exposing the Marxists and their agenda?
Then you were never a true Republican to begin with. Certainly not a Reagan Republican.
This is one of the main reasons I post on these threads, so people like you will know that there are Scientists and Science supporters on the Conservative side.
“Our faith becomes a matter of ridicule, if any Christian, not blessed with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma that which scientific scrutiny shows to be false.” Thomas Aquinas
Please. I posted from Danny Yee. Then you tried to link me to the Marxist Danny Lee and now it is David Lee. Get Real!
Arguments we think creationists should NOT use
“If we evolved from apes, apes shouldn’t exist today.”
In response to this statement, some evolutionists point out that they don’t believe that we descended from apes, but that apes and humans share a common ancestor. However, the evolutionary paleontologist G.G. Simpson had no time for this “pussyfooting,” as he called it. He said, “In fact, that earlier ancestor would certainly be called an ape or monkey in popular speech by anyone who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man’s ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous [mean-spirited] if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise.”
However, the main point against this statement is that many evolutionists believe that a small group of creatures split off from the main group and became reproductively isolated from the main large population, and that most change happened in the small group which can lead to allopatric speciation (a geographically isolated population forming a new species). So there’s nothing in evolutionary theory that requires the main group to become extinct.
It’s important to note that allopatric speciation is not the sole property of evolutionists—creationists believe that most human variation occurred after small groups became isolated (but not speciated) at Babel, while Adam and Eve probably had mid-brown skin color. The quoted erroneous statement is analogous to saying “If all people groups came from Adam and Eve, then why are mid-brown people still alive today?”
So what’s the difference between the creationist explanation of people groups (“races”) and the evolutionist explanation of people origins? Answer: the former involves separation of already-existing information and loss of information through mutations; the latter requires the generation of tens of millions of “letters” of new information.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp
Exactly. As you astutely point out in another post, Darwinism has already been dead for a while. However, the corruption in Big Science continues to push their agenda to new levels, in spite of the simple logic put forth by prominent creationists that we should be doing otherwise.
Not even basic physics is safe now. The Darwinist establishment has poured $9 billion into a big machine in Europe in order to find what they blasphemously call the "God particle" in what stands to be the ultimate derision of Judeo-Christian faith from the scientific establishment.
Of course, none of the raw data will printed for the general public, because they fear the competition that Creation Science and other competing theories will give their data. They'll, of course interpret their own data, instead of allowing thinkers on sites like FreeRepublic (and other conservative websites) to interpret the raw data without the 'proper Darwinist bias'. Count on hearing reports that they've found 'the God particle', without dissemination of the raw data (undoubtedly a house cards) to the public.
It doesn't take a genius to realize that the people who set out to do the experiment are the last people who should be interpreting the data. $9 billion, lots of it American money, dumped into this useless project in Europe - that's how bad it's gotten. If only creation science could have $9 billion in funding - imagine the discoveries that would be made.
Maybe you could point out the part about denying evolution: http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/
I can't find it.
Good on you :-)
I actually used to post on these threads myself. Way back when the years started with '19'.
Yee...Lee...I married one once.
Back to your fruitlessness at hand...what’s he famous for according to himself?
Not my boy. I merely quoted him calling one of his comrades a Marxist to show their common link and to expose the Marxists. Why are you so worked up about my exposing the Marxists and their agenda?
>>>>Try to focus...you’re pro-censorship, is that right?
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.