Free Republic

Obviously the bad part.

Darwin didn't postulate a mechanism for diversity, but he did for natural selection. He assumed genetic inheritance but didn't know about Mendel proving it.

If you say something "might" happen, I assume there is some evidence for it. You have no evidence for lamarkian concepts returning. Does the brain change the DNA code? Are we Telemutagenic? Wow, I didn't know I had super powers.

There were numerous tests done on acquired traits. If you have half of a group of men lift weights with their right arm, and the other half lift weights with their left arm and test the arm strength of the children they have after this experiment; what do you think they would find based upon the experiments that disproved Lamarkian inheritance of acquired traits?

I read the same thing. And I posted it. It shared some Caucasian features, and some Asiatic features. If you came up with the rest on your own than you have some company of a like mind.

If selective pressure didn't result in a change in the phenotype. It does. Read something tailgummer.

I DO NOT TALK TO YOU. Are you starved for attention or something?

I don't talk to you Tailgummer; because you are a Hitlerizer.

Oh, you are scaring me with the scare quotes around Scientist.

I don't talk to you.

Wrong again. Lamarkian evolution wasn't ever a viable theory, it was only valid as a hypothesis in Science because it was falsifiable. Guess what. It was falsified.

The hypothesis never postulated a mechanism, and nothing we know about DNA and genetic inheritance can translate desire and effort into phenotypic differences in successive generations.

There are no Lamarkian concepts that "might" be returning.

I don't talk to you "Hitlerizer".

But you are correct.

"I see no authorization for this spending in the Constitution" are my favorite Presidential words when explaining a veto; too bad there were only two of them who said it.

But you thought there "was no Science in the Constitution."

Maybe if you actually KNEW the Constitution.

Do you even know the Bible? Or are you one of those who think it is God's message to man, but have never read it?

If you think that theory is an insult you don't know anything about science.

Only 400? I'm not impressed. I know at least 400 scientists myself; good god-fearing people mostly. They all accept that God works in mysterious ways, but that doesn't mean we can't figure out how HIS creation functions.

Ridiculous.

There is less than a 1% difference in protein sequence between humans and chimps. The fact that only 20% of proteins are exactly identical is interesting, but is mathematically predicted by Molecular Evolution.

These differences in protein are obviously not enough to account for the phenotypic differences because there is also the DNA sequence that precedes the gene that codes for the protein and controls when it will be turned on or off. There is also the DNA that goes into the leading end and tail end of the messenger RNA, and it controls how long the message will last, where it goes in the cell, and under what conditions it will be translated to protein.

A small difference in a gene that makes a protein that turns on or off other genes is going to make a much larger difference than a structural protein. Thats all your saying with the last part.

Grok?

Read Article I, section 8, line 8. Your point "exactly" is wrong. Nice try linking Science to Communism and Nazi's. The Commies liked Lamarkian evolution and rejected Darwin and Mendel. The Nazi's looked to a man for their authority, not Science. This is what that man had to say about secularism... "Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without religious foundation is built on air; consequently all character training and religion must be derived from faith . . ."on signing the Nazi-Vatican Concordat, April 26, 1933: And this is from an Associated Press article from the Lansing State Journal, February 23, 1933

Teaching Science will lead to a Soviet System? I'm not following you. The Soviet "genetics" system under Stalin said that there were no genes or DNA or chromosomes. They were hardly a "scientific" system. They ignored all scientific data that went against their ideology, just as they ignored all economic data that their system was a failure.

There is no "ultimate authority" with the force of law in Science. There are observations and theories. If you don't like it you can make some of your own observations and formulate your own theories. Good luck.

And evolution is science, not PC dogma. What is politically correct about evolution, it doesn't make anyone feel good, there are winners and losers, and it involves lots and lots of sex sometimes with force and violence against females.

"There is no science nor Hegel nor Marxism in the Constitution"

I suggest you read Article 1, section 8, line 8. You have not Idea what the Constitution says do you?

No i didn't go to them, because they were blocked. Is your brain blocked?

And the anthropological (not anthropolitical) evidence is inconclusive as the skull seems to have several different traits from several different present day population groups. This was from the actual scientists who measured the skull, as I said, the only ones making the claim that the skull was clearly Caucasian and that Europeans were the "Real" native Americans as a result were RACIST SWINE.

Maybe you'd understand that I didn't actually see any of the racist sites, just their URL and the sentence that contained my search words; and that the anthropological data was inconclusive as far as what present day population the skull was most like- if I spoke to you in your own language.

Oink. Oink Oink Oink. Oink. Oink. OINK!

You have no idea what your talking about. The code is a trinucleotide sequence that specifies an amino acid in a specific protein.

I suppose you also think there is some hidden code in the Bible?

How about in sunspots?

And if it is "sooooooooooo complex" how did we recognize it in the first place?

Some people will believe anything I guess.

"Does evolution speak to where DNA came from?"

No. It doesn't. Darwin didn't even know about DNA, he postulated that there was a genetic inheritance and genetic diversity, and he was correct. When Darwin spoke about the origin of life (Abiogenesis, NOT evolution, evolution through natural selection assumes life, it doesn't explain it) he waxed mystical and spoke of the "breath of life" or some such.

Science isn't morality and it isn't law.

Nobody's forcing you to accept evolutionary theory. If you don't want the latest antibiotics because you don't think selective pressure will result bacterial resistance to the old antibiotics, nobody is forcing you to buy them.

Nobody is forcing you to accept the principle of Electromagnetism. If you think it all happens by magic that is fine, so long as you pay your electricity bill on time.

And Scientific theories aren't so much about being "right" or "wrong" but about being useful and useless.

If Bohr's model of the atom is complete bunk and absolutely "wrong" it doesn't change the fact that it is a highly useful theory that allows one to better observe and predict the universe and explain phenomena.

And ID "theory" may be absolutely 100% right but it is still absolutely 100% useless for the purpose of observing and predicting the universe, although it does have a crude simplicity in its explanations of phenomena.

I personally do believe that the laws of the universe themselves were designed, but that God needn't be mucking with his creation all the time; however I recognize that my feelings about the symmetry of the universe are ABSOLUTLY NOT scientific observations.

Oh, so any Christian you don't like was just lying about their true belief?

It doesn't change the historic FACT that Hitler used Christian rhetoric to inflame sentiment against Jews if he was a SUPER SECRET DOUBLE PROBATION pagan or atheist or "scientist" or whatever the lie of the day you are trying to peddle.

He said it. They believed it. They killed the Jews because of it.

And you have a really sick view of what being a scientist is if you think that Hitler was one. He was a painter, he didn't ever do any science, and he didn't understand evolutionary theory (and neither do you).

Now you compared me to Hitler. This discussion is over. I don't like you anymore. Don't you know that calling someone Hitler is the last refuge of an intellectual cretin?

No, I just goggled to look for anyone who was saying what you were saying about how the REAL native Americans were Europeans, and they were all racist sites.

The actual papers upon the skull measures seem to think he exhibited some features that looked Caucasian, but others that looked aboriginal Japanese or South Asian.

The only ones making the kind of claims you made seem to be racist swine.

As a Geneticist I know that there is only one race. The human race.

He said his lord drove out the moneylenders from the temple. Does this describe someone other than Jesus?

He said Nationalist Socialism was a "true-Christian" principle, was he referring to a different Christ?