Posted on 01/30/2003 7:15:04 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
LMAO! Ponder this quote. "Anyone who can't use a slide rule is a cultural illiterate and should not be allowed to vote." Robert Heinlein. This also reminds me of the New York Times newspaper ridiculing Robert Goddard in 1920.
So what "science" do you find acceptable since 1776?
It was very interesting. It takes a looking back position to explain why aging evolved. And it offered a few specific theories and predictions. From the article:
If selection and adaptation were perfect, it would give us organisms that begin reproducing right way, keep doing it continuously, producing an infinite number of offspring, and living forever. But this isn't possible; there are both physical constraints- can't reproduce infinite amount. But even before you hit obvious physical constraints, there are biological trade-offs, e.g. if produce too many offspring, increase chances of dying
The above article left it as a survival thing, that if predation is such that all are killed in x amount of time, then an aging gene would be coincidentally selected. But that doesn't help to explain how such a phenomenon could arise across all species with different ages and effects.
You are kidding...right? The Founding Fathers were concerned about establishing a nation where everyone was free to worship (or not) as they saw fit. Many of the Colonials had suffered religious persecution in the Old World, and I cannot believe they intended to create a new nation that was fundamentally repressive.
I suppose next you'll be telling us that in order to be "saved", a person must be a Creationist. If so, I challenge you to direct us to the appropriate book, chapter and verse in the Bible.
"Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offense against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered." (James Madison, in Memorial and Remonstrance)
Thus, the obligation falls upon Believers to guarantee the rights of those who do not believe in a God or gods.
I suppose next you'll be telling us that in order to be "saved", a person must be a Creationist. If so, I challenge you to direct us to the appropriate book, chapter and verse in the Bible.
The Founding Fathers were more concerned with an Old World Church twisting the teachings of Christ and making bogus power grabs with divine authority.
This passage explains how the Father watches over every sparrow as well as knows us intimately. (Exhibiting more than just a Creator but also a concerned Creator actively participating). Then Jesus lays out clearly what "saved" means.
Matt 10:28-35
28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. 29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. 30 And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 So dont be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows. 32Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven. 34 Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law 36 a mans enemies will be the members of his own household.
You'll be in a superior position when your God peeks out from behind the clouds and says "Hey, governments and other thugs of the world! Leave the people that go to MY church alone!"
My rights are as good as my willingness and ability to guard them. I can be overpowered, robbed, imprisoned, or killed. People have died for their rights before. Your position would seem to be about the same.
The above article left it as a survival thing, that if predation is such that all are killed in x amount of time, then an aging gene would be coincidentally selected. But that doesn't help to explain how such a phenomenon could arise across all species with different ages and effects.
Some senescence mutations would be almost as old as life itself and thus very ancient and very general. The kind of factors they talk about in that link start operating as soon as mutation and natural selection do.
It is basically enough that you can get away without living forever if you reproduce a lot. Recall that the optimum strategy--other things being equal, but especially if your personal odds are not good--is to reproduce as much as possible as early as possible and get "compound interest." Be prolific, die young; you still win.
Living absolutely forever wouldn't really hurt, but it's irrelevant. It's never been selected. Living somewhat longer can be selected (recall the birds and turtles) where predation is luxuriously light, but enough reproduction eventually happens to take the pressure of natural selection to ineffective low levels for older individuals.
So there are a lot of things--not just a few--in your genome that tend to make you come unraveled over time. You might think it's important, but in fact it has never mattered. Evolution, as Dawkins likes to point out, is about genes, not individuals.
Er, care to discuss the remarkable history of Jews and Christians and the nations which harbored them?
(Oh, Lord! Why have you forsaken me?)
It seems to me that the theory of evolution would require, from inception, genetic coding which did not provide for self-destruction over time. That suggests two things which should be there to support the theory of evolution:
2) there should be evidence in fossil record of when it emerged for certain species (e.g. arthritic conditions of the bone.)
Relentless strawmanning. You're the only major evolutionary theorist who thinks so.
Evolutionary models of aging are supported by population studies and by molecular biology.
There is obviously a selection bias toward the reproductive years in a lifespan. Mortality is also a tradeoff against cancer. The programmed cell death you allude to is part of a tightly controlled network of genes that guard against damage to cells that would lead to uncontrolled growth. These are two effects fall under the antagonistic pleiotropic models. And they make perfect sense. But there is greater support for the model that aging is a result of mutational and cellular damage. It's a surprise that we live as long as we do and the pleiotropic effects that may contribute to cellular and organismal senescence don't control lifespan as much as the simple inability of stress and mutational repair mechanisms to extend lifespan.
So he still looks the same now?
And why did Heckel fake those drawings ... ?
My guess, Haeckel was so in love with his proposed "law" as to suffer creationist levels of reality-fudging.
... My son was born at 29 weeks. Wish I knew how to post a picture to show how perfect he was!! No evolution going on there!! [Why] do school textbooks still use them?
Are these the same school textbooks that are "still using Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man?"
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.