Posted on 07/11/2002 9:44:50 AM PDT by ZGuy
The prominent magazine Scientific American thought it had finally discredited its nemesis—creationism—with a feature article listing ‘15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense’ (July 2002). Supposedly these were the fifteen best arguments that evolutionists could use to discredit the Bible’s account of Creation. (National Geographic TV also devoted a lengthy report to the article.)
Within 72 hours, Dr Jonathan Sarfati—a resident scientist at Answers in Genesis–Australia—had written a comprehensive, point-by-point critique of the magazine article and posted it on this Web site.
So Scientific American thought it would try to silence AiG with the threat of a lawsuit.
In an e-mail to Dr Sarfati, Scientific American accused him and AiG of infringing their copyright by reproducing the text of their article and an illustration. They said they were prepared to ‘settle the matter amicably’ provided that AiG immediately remove Dr Sarfati’s article from its Web site.
AiG’s international copyright attorney, however, informed Scientific American that their accusations are groundless and that AiG would not be removing the article. Dr Sarfati’s article had used an illustration of a bacterial flagellum, but it was drawn by an AiG artist years ago. AiG had also used the text of SA’s article, but in a way that is permissible under ‘fair use’ of copyrighted materials for public commentary. (AiG presented the text of the SA article, with Dr Sarfati’s comments interspersed in a different color, to avoid any accusations of misquoting or misrepresenting the author.)
Why the heavy-handed tactics? If AiG’s responses were not valid, why would Scientific American even care whether they remained in the public arena? One can only presume that Scientific American (and National Geographic) had the ‘wind taken out of their sails.’ Dr Sarfati convincingly showed that they offered nothing new to the debate and they displayed a glaring ignorance of creationist arguments. Their legal maneuver appears to be an act of desperation. (AiG is still awaiting SA’s response to the decision not to pull the Web rebuttal.)
Agreed. But if the environment were to change back to something it was before, isn't it possible that it would select a species 'back', so to speak, to a state it had previously had once before?
Like losing fins then gaining them again, as in the case of whales.
Pssst . . . as I said in that post it does seem to happen.
Man, you're not very good at this stuff at all, are you.
These genes ARE mutants and arose ONLY during the selection process.
Listen carefully everyone: THEY WERE NOT FOUND IN THE ORIGINAL POPULATION. Gore3000 believes biology is unexplainable magic.
...of this 3126 amino acid long gene only two possible mutations would be favorable.
And these mutations were repeatedly isolated from bacteria grown on lactose. Some of these ebgA genes had BOTH mutations (The review refers to these as "Class IV") One more time for the logically challenged:
All Class I mutants have a G to A mutation in ebgA that results in an Asp-92Asn substitution, while all Class II mutants have a G to(T or C) mutation in ebgA that results in a Trp-977Cys substitution
Gore3000 agrees with evolution after all (he just doesn't know it yet).
Really? Okay, name ONE (1) example of reverse evolution. Just one.
Nope (and BTW that is a paraphrase of Mao). Look at post# 1271, you think that is going to happen undirected? You cannot add mutations, in between all that stuff you got genes, you got a whole program to control those genes, a program to even control the whole life process. It is not an addition question, it is a design question. You cannot just add stuff randomly and expect for things to work better, you need to design complex things for them to work properly.
Why?
To put it simply, the possibility for change is dynamic. There isn't a single species which is evolving independent of other evolving species. At each point in time, the opportunities for mutation are different. What's more, evolution is driven to adaptive states. Once an adaptive unit (organism, cell, whatever) has reached such a state, the previous state is no longer adaptive. And, as a multitude of other organisms are coevolving, the previous state is forever lost, and a growing landscape of adaptive possibilities keeps driving evolution forward.
"So Scientific American thought it would try to silence AiG with the threat of a lawsuit. "
was the response by Scientific American to a critique of their article on Creation? AIG had every right to correct their mistatements and put them in their place. Trying to silence the truth through legal action only emphasizes how ridiculous they are.
Glad to, but if I do please do me a favor and answer a questin for me: What does 'evidence' mean to you?
Okay, as I said, apparently fish became wolves who became whales.
A species lost fins, then gained them back again.
So a species changed from a 'finned' species to a 'non-finned' one and back again.
Reverted to an earlier state.
Now answer me, please -- what is 'evidence', to you?
"So Scientific American thought it would try to silence AiG with the threat of a lawsuit. "
was the response by Scientific American to a critique of their article on Creation? AIG had every right to correct their mistatements and put them in their place. Trying to silence the truth through legal action only emphasizes how ridiculous they are.
Even this author sees through the idioctic Scientific American response:
"Why the heavy-handed tactics? If AiG’s responses were not valid, why would Scientific American even care whether they remained in the public arena? One can only presume that Scientific American (and National Geographic) had the ‘wind taken out of their sails.’ Dr Sarfati convincingly showed that they offered nothing new to the debate and they displayed a glaring ignorance of creationist arguments. Their legal maneuver appears to be an act of desperation. (AiG is still awaiting SA’s response to the decision not to pull the Web rebuttal.)"
LOL UNScientific American magazine. Still a high brow leftist joke of a rag.
The previous state may be 'lost', but it is certainly possible for either this species or another species to be 'selected' back into the same, or a very similar, state, isn't it?
Again, assuming the environment so selected.
Even the characterization of the influence of science is explicitly perjorative. Most interesting.
What species? You tell me what evidence you have for it. You claim that reverse evolution has occurred, you tell me you know that.
Too funny and BLINDED by bias. You completely missed the point. It's YOU who behaves like a Demoncrat. To help you out, this is the point:
"Why the heavy-handed tactics? If AiG’s responses were not valid, why would Scientific American even care whether they remained in the public arena? One can only presume that Scientific American (and National Geographic) had the ‘wind taken out of their sails.’ Dr Sarfati convincingly showed that they offered nothing new to the debate and they displayed a glaring ignorance of creationist arguments. Their legal maneuver appears to be an act of desperation. (AiG is still awaiting SA’s response to the decision not to pull the Web rebuttal.)"
You ought to take a course in logic as well.
Please, I'm serious.
I'd like to know.
What does 'evidence' mean to you? What is 'evidence'?
I've learned quite a bit from you. Thanks.
why they want total control---
public and private!
LOL! Scientific evidence backs up their "faith". The only affirmative argument is not just the Bible but scientific evidence that is objective. It is the evolutionists that must have "faith" in their godless views to continue believing this nonsense since objective scientific evidence does NOT support the numerous evolving theories of evolution. It's also not a coincidence that ALL leaders of this evolutionary movement are atheists. They can't have God as part of it since they don't believe in Him or take His word to heart. Instead it is their ego and vain philosophy that motivates them. They simply can't imagine Anyone being brighter and able to create all we see and don't see. They use their simple minds as the yardstick for truth and hence these unproven and endless theories.
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.