Biology textbook hearings prompt science disputes [Texas]

Knight Ridder Newspapers ^ | 08 July 2003 | MATT FRAZIER

[ALS]

then why insinuate it in hopes no one will take the time to check it out?

hmmm?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

By the way, the site really does look good and as soon as you clean out all that pro-Darwin stuff, it'll be a prime source of ID links.

LOL! Any pro-Darwin links in my articles will stay because they would be supportive of the points being made in the narrative.

[ALS]

Took all of mere seconds for more evo-goons to hop on your wheel-less wagon.

HA!

[js1138]

I recommend that everyone should read the article. It is a classic in the self-correcting nature of science. Two theoretical camps Duking it out, so to speak. All those who think that science is ruled by a priesthood which excommunicates dissenters can learn from this article. I commend designeduniverse for bringing it to us.

[ALS]

Thanks for promoting Creation/ID Science.

here's a helpful link:

http://designeduniverse.com

[Alamo-Girl]

I know you didn't address your remarks to me, but as a contributor on DesignedUniverse.com, thank you so much for your kind and hopeful words!

[ALS]

IN light of the FACTS, and post #1512

I hereby award you the Sherlock Holmes junior Detective Thingamajig:

you can keep it until another evo takes your place. which is any minute now

[JesseShurun]

bending over, better watch out for

[JesseShurun]

Hillary quote in Vanity Fair: " I don't know why the VRWC thinks Bill and I are evil. True, the Gambino Family got me elected Senator of New York but so what? Would NewYork rather have Rudy Guiliani?

I have been studying the Bible. It says to love your enemies. I love everyone. Who is old enough to vote. Please get those slobbering little bronx babies away from my Gucci outfit. I paid extra to be photographed on tv"

[JesseShurun]

JesseDuke has left monkeyland. Y'all behave now, y'hear?

[JesseShurun]

Jesse has a date with restornu:

Yee Haw!

[gore3000]

I'm pinging Gore3000 in case he'd like to address your concerns.

I don't see what concerns there could be about the Duke article, it clearly says that they threw out mtDNA use due to the results not being what they expected:

But the current molecular method of using mitochondrial DNA to classify how mammals evolved is so flawed that it might have erroneously linked very different mammals, the scientists said. The mitochondrial DNA method of analyzing mammals has turned on its head the common-sense approach of linking mammals by similar anatomical traits or "morphology," they said.

The above is 'evolutionize' for saying, hey, this test does not agree with our evolutionary assumptions so we must throw it out. The following is an even more blatant example on the same subject:

A quite interesting example of evolution "science" is at Mammalian Genome (PDF file).

First evolutionists tried to use mitochondrial DNA to show the relationships between the monotremes (platypus), the eutherians (kangaroos) and the placentals (all other mammals). The mtDNA did not give them the desired results "The value and accuracy of decades of morphological study have been discounted recently by mytochondrial DNA evidence". So of course the evos could not let that happen, so they had to try again. They then tried DNA hybridization. However, under this method also Darwinian theory was refuted "It is significant that apomorphies of the theran ancestors, such as the braincase, cranial nerve architecture, and reproductive physiology" had to be reclassified as convergences under these two tests. So of course they had to pick another test to get the results they wished - a totally new one called MP6/IG2FR!

The problem in both the Duke test and the one in Mammalian Genome is that the platypus lays eggs, but the kangaroos have live birth, nevertheless the platypus mtDNA was closer to the placentals than the kangaroos which of course destroys tons of evolutionist assumptions. They cannot for one thing continue to say that mtDNA proves their 'tree of life'. But what is worse is the blatant disregard for experiments when they disagree with their assumptions. Experiments are supposed to test theories, not the other way around. However, evolutionists do not test their theories, they test reality and if it does not fit their theory, they ignore it.

[gore3000]

Do you claim any of these support your claim they believe in evolution?

The point is not whether the 'scientists' who performed the above indecencies believe in evolution or not, they obviously do. The question is whether they can be called scientists and whether such a mode of conduct can be called science.

[ALS]

Obviously js1138's ill fated attempt was aimed at me and you. He tried to imply I just put up articles without reading through them. Somehow this myth was supposed to tarnish the authors, etc., blah.

Then he wanted to lay down some bogus claim in hopes no one would read it(same thing he was accusing me of.) The idea there is to make you out a dummy for not reading your own original article. What's that boy huffin'?
Aren't libs famous for hoping no one will check out their wild claims, and then along comes a conservative to set them staright?
The speed at which two other evos stuck their collective necks in the noose just goes to show that none of them read the article themselves.

The embarassment must be excruciating!

[gore3000]

Then he wanted to lay down some bogus claim in hopes no one would read it(same thing he was accusing me of.)

I have gained some of my best ammunition against evolution by reading the links of evolutionists!

[ALS]

Yeah, pretty much like we do here :)

[PatrickHenry]

P L A C E M A R K E R

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your excellent reply, putting the reference in context with its use! Hugs!!!

[VadeRetro]

Keep finding that stuff and one article won't be there that much longer! (Or will be quote-mine excerpted beyond all recognition.)

[VadeRetro]

One thing about that Duke study: it seems to point up unreliabilities in mtDNA as a research tool. Despite this, mtDNA is still used all over the place. I have been unable to find out one way or the other if there is some reason--some stratgegy mitigating the problems pointed up in this 2 or 3 year old report--why there hasn't been more of an impact on how genetic relatedness is studied and reported.

Just for one thing, mtDNA is the basis for the repeated proclamations that "Genetic studies have shown that Neanderthals are NOT ancestral to humans ... etc." Creos like gore love to trumpet that one for gap-gaming purposes, but here's gore speaking out of the other side of his mouth going after the basis of his contention.