Posted on 03/13/2002 4:47:26 AM PST by JediGirl
Where did I get the idea it was called the "Weasel" program? Gosh, you're so funny you even make jokes by accident!
You have problems. Why so defensive and hostile? Why don't you simply communicate?
You have lost your sense of wonder. You need to refresh your sense of self-worth pretty often, also, but that's another matter. If you somehow succeed in making the world safe for ID/creationism (because you feel so sorry for the poor picked-on ignorami), the answer to "Why do mitochondria have their own DNA?" becomes "Why should I second-guess Him?"
That bothers me. Yes, I learned all this recently and there it goes on the trash heap.
Doesn't upset you? You who supposedly revere science? Is it because you have a rather elitist view of science as something for a limited priesthood, the rabble being kept definitely out? It always seems to come down to that with your posts. And why do we have to be so exclusive? So the guy who's "happy" to be "tall" (or wishes he was) can imagine himself a little taller.
Try Viagra.
BTW, as for your psychologist friend, you might direct him toward a fellow named Ted Holden. I plugged his name into a search engine and came up with 775 hits, including at least one where he threatened to get several folks fired from their jobs for disagreeing with him in print. He has several websites devoted to his rather unorthodox views and his rather acerbic manner of presenting them. I think your friend could write reams on this fellow -- hundreds of other people already appear to have done so.
Became eukaryotes. Is this proof of God?
I know a bunch of people who have answered you on those posts. You say no one ever has. Who is telling the truth?
BTW, you aren't still telling people that, are you? That would really be wanting too much for your own amnesia.
It's a what is 1 + 1 type question.
That it is intriguing to you is telling.
So, the theory is attributed to you?
I talked about it being trippy.
The trippiest part is the ribosomes. They are small like prokaryotic ribosomes, whereas the main cellulat euk ribosomes are larger (you probably didn't know that -- and I doubt actually understand it).
I hinted to it way back when. You are way toooooooo slow witted and not quite knowledgeable enough.
And it's no big deal if Aquinasfan throws it all in the trash, right? That makes it more exclusive for you, right?
No faith in truth I see...
Why would you think anyone can throw it in the trash?
I don't understand or share your paranoia.
(You are most likely misrepresenting this Aquinasfan, whome you seem obsessed with, as well).
I have never changed my position on what macro-evolution is.
Evolutionists have been trying since Darwin to confuse micro-evolution and macro-evolution. No one disagrees with micro-evolution - the small changes that species make to adapt to their environment. However, the meat of the theory of evolution is not small changes. Indeed, they should not even be called changes at all, they should be called transformations. The theory of evolution posits that step by step through the millenia since life began, species have been transforming themselves into new species each one more complex in their organisms than the previous ones. They posit that fish developed legs and started walking on earth. They posit that reptiles grew wings and became birds. They posit that reptiles again grew mammary glands, became live bearing, and turned themselves into mammals. These transformations by small adaptations were very questionable even when first made. However, genetics and specifically the discovery of DNA has made them quite impossible. Adaptations can occur by single point mutations in a gene. Transformations require not just a totally new gene, but many new genes to be created to support those transformations. The impossibility of this happening by random mutations (and there can be no selection in the creation of a gene since there is no function until the gene is completed) is astronomical. The possibility of thousands of new genes being created for the millions of species living and dead is a total impossibility.
Speciation while a prerequisite to such transformations is not proof of macro-evolution. A species (especially with the loose terminology of evolutionists) can arise (according to evos) by merely being geographically isolated from the rest of the group (guess Robinson Crusoe was not a man anymore because he ended up in a deserted island), it can also (according to the evos) become a new species just because the bird-songs it sings are not recognized for mating by other individuals having all the same characteristics. The classic definition of speciation is the ability to mate and produce offspring. This however is not sufficient because the two species can still have essentially the same characteristics and still not be able to produce offspring with each other. In other words they will still be birds, they will still be fruit flies, they will still be fish. They can be the same in all essential characteristics and still not be able to produce progeny. This is still micro-evolution because the species, neither one, has acquired any new faculties, and has not become more complex in any way.
So to sum up. Macro-evolution is a transformation requiring new genes, more complexity and new faculties. In terms of genetics, it requires at a minimum the creation of more than one new gene. In terms of taxonomy it would require an organism to change into a different genus.
Very true.
Do you begin to get it now? Some people though follow it and are aware of it. It's second nature, a given.
(And there are still disagreements as to symbiotic theory -- can you name anything that could argue against it?).
Somehow, you had me thinking you were a frustrated, fear-ridden, really screwed up guy!
No. Symbiosis seems to tie up the most ends, but new lines of evidence might be tough.
I've hardly ever argued with Aquinasfan. He's simply who you came to the rescue of without reading his posts.
Why do you assume no one can harm science in this country?
I've noticed you have a problem with your reading comprehension. Maybe there's more neurology than psychology in your disorder. Let's try an analogy test.
Ed Asner has never admitted to being a communist. He's best described as an anti-anticommunist. Wherever anticommunists threaten, say, Castro's interests, they'd better be ready to deal with Ed Asner.
What would an anti-anticreationist be like?
Typical gobledygook. Trying to sound profound when all you are doing is being unintelligible.
You have not answered my question as to why these species have not been mutating for 400 million years.
If you don't know what it is how can you say it's gobledygook? Ok, I'll explain. An example of local maximum would be a tv, a remote and a beer. You could get to a 'higher' point on a fitness landscape by going to your next door neighbor if he had a bigger tv - a small change in gene pool. To get to a higher point you would need to get a job, earn some money and buy a bigger tv. But that would be too big a change - evolution doesn't work in such large steps, it's 'blind', it does not see the payoff after several 'low fitness' steps. That's why some species don't change for 400 million years - in a stable environment the paths to better fitness are TOO LONG.
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.