Skip to comments.
Biology Professor Refuses to Recommend Students Who Don't Believe in Evolution
Texas Tech ^
| January 29, 2003
| Michael Dini
Posted on 01/30/2003 9:33:28 AM PST by matthew_the_brain
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160, 161-180, 181-200 ... 361-367 next last
To: Polycarp
Its simply expression of pre-existing DNA code.
Mutation implies a change in the DNA code. That means that something that wasn't there before shows up. That means that it is not pre-existing.
To: the_devils_advocate_666
One bite at a time.
To: Right Wing Professor
You can't change a closed mindYou are quite consistent in supporting this statement
...This is why I won't waste my time debating creationists
I'm having trouble verifying this one, though. Perhaps if I read more of your posts...
163
posted on
01/30/2003 12:34:11 PM PST
by
70times7
(Danger Will Robinson! Bacteria approaching!)
To: Dimensio
That means that it is not pre-existing.Fine. Show me non pre-existing bacterial DNA codes that have spontaneously evolved since the advent of anti-biotics.
To: Right Wing Professor
No pre cambrian fossils .. .. ..
massive flooding // 'volcanic' sediment layering from above .. .. ..
and sub terranean layering from below -- -- --
young earth = = = all the time for erosian // evolution is gone . . .
evolution ===== hoax // scam !
Main Entry: sub·ter·ra·nean
Pronunciation: "s&b-t&-'rA-nE-&n, -ny&n
Variant(s): also sub·ter·ra·neous /-nE-&s, -ny&s/
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin subterraneus, from sub- + terra earth -- more at THIRST
Date: 1603
1 : being, lying, or operating under the surface of the earth
2 : existing or working in secret : HIDDEN
- sub·ter·ra·nean·ly also sub·ter·ra·neous·ly adverb
165
posted on
01/30/2003 12:55:00 PM PST
by
f.Christian
(Orcs of the world: Take note and beware.)
To: Dimensio
Mutation implies a change in the DNA code. That means that something that wasn't there before shows up. That means that it is not pre-existing.No, it doesn't necessarily mean that "something that wasn't there before shows up". Very often, a mutation can entail a loss of an existing genetic trait. For example, in the case of the Staphylococcus bacteria...
Experiments in suitable growing conditions have shown that occasionally bacteria lose their cell wall and produce a mutant or degenerate L form. These L forms are less tolerant to change than the normal form and can only function under certain conditions. Compared to the normal bacteria, they are misshapen and have poor tolerance against attack. Except, that is, against attack from penicillin! Having no cell walls it is of little concern to them if penicillin is present or not. These forms reproduce more slowly than normal bacteria and are therefore usually less of a threat to health than other types of bacteria, but the point to be made is that - they cannot normally be treated with penicillin. ~~ (Creation Ex Nihilo, November 1980)
However, such genetic information loss can hardly be proposed as a suitable mechanism for "evolution". Eventually, the organism would "evolve" itself completely out of genes to eliminate and is... well, "it's dead, Jim"; not to put too fine a point on it.
Now, let me cut the inevitable counter-argument off at the pass: No, I am not saying that such penicillin-resistant "information loss" is the only sort of bacteriological mutation out there. I am, however, pointing out that once we eliminate all cases of "resistance by pre-existing trait" (Polycarp's on/off gene switches) and "resistance by genetic evasion" (net information loss, but which removes the vulnerable gene)... which, if we are being scientifically rigorous, we must do...
...then at that point the "pool" of Evolutionist "examples" which may be even arguably asserted in support of his imaginary "just-so" stories, just got a vastly smaller.
166
posted on
01/30/2003 12:58:54 PM PST
by
OrthodoxPresbyterian
(We are unworthy servants; We have only done our duty.)
To: Polycarp
However, expression of latent genes and or gene swapping IS NOT EVOLUTION! Read the paragraph about vertical evolution again.
To: Dimensio
Me: What is observable about the big bang YOU: Remnants, evidence.
Remnants would be the results of the event, not the event itself. Therefore the event remains unobserved. But you make a good point. It's all about the interpretation of the evidence.
I'm not aware of any leading scientific theories on "the beginning of time". In fact, from what I've seen most scientific principles break down once you get into Plank time, and as such there's no way to discern what happened 'before' that, much less whether or not there was a 'beginning'.
Cosmologists and theologians both believe time had a beginning. It was, however, unobserved.
Secular cosmologists have a couple of difficulties with the origin of time and matter that creationists do not have:
The origin of matter from a materialist viewpoint is a difficulty because the materialist believes matter and its motion are all there is. Logically, matter was either created or it always existed. The creation option is ruled out a priori because it interferes with the materialist's presuppositions. Therefore the materialist is forced to defend eternal matter; matter that existed before there was time. Now this is a logical contradiction for the materialist because something cannot exist before time since the concept of before requires time. Why is it contradictory? First, it calls for the attribute of eternal without an eternity. Second, all we know about matter and physics has to be suspended in order to explain the big bang. That takes the natural out of naturalism and makes it supernaturalism.
Now the biggest difference between your supernaturalism and my supernaturalism is that your supernaturalism happened without a God.
168
posted on
01/30/2003 1:10:40 PM PST
by
Dataman
To: Dataman
Cosmologists and theologians both believe time had a beginning. It was, however, unobserved.
All cosmologists and all theologians? Surely you're not speaking for everyone with such a sweeping generalization.
I've never heard of any reputable cosmologist coming up with a naturalistic hypothesis on the 'beginning of time'. As for theologians...their work is not science. Inventing a creator deity because you don't have a better explanation is not science, and it's not the same thing as 'evidence'.
To: matthew_the_brain
From personal experience I can say that belief in evolution is irrelevant to the practice of medicine. I have had many beleiving and nonbeieving colleagues of excellent caliber.
Evolution is a theory. Therefore skepticism is not irrational, as with all theories. Insistence that skepticism about evolution is unscientific is itself contrary to the practice of science. If you can't tolerate having a theory questioned, you aren't much of a scientist.
170
posted on
01/30/2003 1:18:50 PM PST
by
Glock22
To: Glock22
Evolution is a theory. Therefore skepticism is not irrational, as with all theories. Insistence that skepticism about evolution is unscientific is itself contrary to the practice of science. If you can't tolerate having a theory questioned, you aren't much of a scientist. What other scientific theories are you skeptical about? Universal gravitation? Conservation of mass/energy? The second law of thermodynamics?
To: Lurking Libertarian
It's not the same as believing in the "Watchmaker God" who creates and sends forth creation, and stays uninvolved after that, though. The physical universe is adequate to its divine purpose and so rarely does He need to intervene that many people can't even see how miraculous it all is.
The quantity of mass in an electron and its exact charge suffice to prove God's existence. There is infinite intelligence in the elegance of design at every level, and even random chance--isn't.
172
posted on
01/30/2003 1:36:25 PM PST
by
ChemistCat
(...I am too busy to be insecure.)
To: Dimensio; agrace
I have many difficulties with "evolution." This is the one I was referring to in my earlier post on this thread.
I asked the professor whether he believed that evolution occurred gradually over long periods of time, or rather was the result of some sudden change. He, like most, answered that it was the result of imperceptible changes over a long period of time.
I then asked if he believed in genetics and, more specifically if he believed in chromosomes. And of course he did.
I pointed out that humans (capable of reproducing anyway) have 23 chromosome pairs, and that at sometime we must have "evolved" from some animal with 22 pairs, or possibly some other number. But since the simplest animals have just one pair end we evolved from them we must have made the jump to 23 pairs at some point along the way. I asked him how this could be done gradually. He didn't have an answer. (The conversation was a little more detailed than this, but that's the gist of it.)
ML/NJ
173
posted on
01/30/2003 1:37:48 PM PST
by
ml/nj
To: Right Wing Professor
Prof, you missed the point. Open inquiry and skepticism are essential to the scientific method. Insulting those who question a theory you believe in ain't science.
Or, to put it better, your response isn't right....it isn't even wrong.
174
posted on
01/30/2003 1:37:52 PM PST
by
Glock22
To: Dimensio
I've never heard of any reputable cosmologist coming up with a naturalistic hypothesis on the 'beginning of time'.here's some help for you.
exerpt: Most scientists agree that the universe began some 12 to 20 billion years ago in what has come to be known as the Big Bang
exerpt: Cosmologists believe that all forms of matter and energy, as well as space and time itself, were formed at this instant.
I guess you weren't very informed on this matter. No problem. You can still argue against it.
Inventing a creator deity because you don't have a better explanation is not science, and it's not the same thing as 'evidence'
Of course you must realize that the denial of a creator deity is not science, and it's not the same thing as evidence.
175
posted on
01/30/2003 1:39:21 PM PST
by
Dataman
To: Blood of Tyrants
Evolution is central to the study and understanding of biophenomena. End of story.
176
posted on
01/30/2003 1:39:56 PM PST
by
Pharmboy
(Dems lie 'cause they have to)
To: Glock22
You betcha sweet bippy I'm a wolf. Just look at my pedigree. Wolf on BOTH sides.
177
posted on
01/30/2003 1:42:16 PM PST
by
ChemistCat
(...I am too busy to be insecure.)
To: Pharmboy
I was discussing this subject with a high school biology teacher friend of mine......he still believes Haeckel and his Embryos are proof of evolution.....
Keep your kids out of government controlled schools.
To: Dataman
And from that page:
Science tells us nothing about the way space, time and matter behaved in our universe's earliest instant, from the time of the Big Bang to 10^-43 seconds later. Space was certainly expanding--violently--and from this expansion of space was formed a highly energetic soup of particles and antiparticles.
The page gives a very simplistic general summary of the overall hypothesis, explained in layman's terms. The fact is that cosmologists don't have a theory for how time 'began' because they cannot speculate on how it would happen because of the breakdown in scientific laws at Plank time.
Of course you must realize that the denial of a creator deity is not science, and it's not the same thing as evidence.
I never claimed as much. I simply lack belief in a creator deity due to lack of evidence.
To: ChemistCat
The quantity of mass in an electron and its exact charge suffice to prove God's existence.
Does it really? And does it prove anything apart from this "God"'s existence, such as fundamental attributes of this entity?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160, 161-180, 181-200 ... 361-367 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson