Posted on 01/14/2007 5:31:07 PM PST by Tim Long
Good riddence Central- it's obvious you can't resist acting like a child and are too lazy to check into the FACTS yourself- the fact that I refuse to do ALL the wqork for you does NOT negate the FACT that what I said was true- I asked you to be careful when tossing around the ignorant label, but evidently you're too slow to understand why I warned you.-
We've done so- evidently you haven't noticed?
Yet another embarassment.
Insult to injury and so forth....
[If you believe that changes to the genome do not produce an increase in information then you are arguing that the information content of a DNA sequence is static. If the information content of a DNA sequence can change then it either increases or decreases. If the information content can decrease then it can increase, if it can increase then it can decrease, this is all very simple. Any change to a DNA sequence is reversible, if you make a change to any nucleotide in the sequence you can change the point back to its original value. If the change to the sequence decreases the information content then changing it back will increase the information content. This shows that information can increase in the string through a simple change to the sequence. This is true of any change to the sequence whether caused by an indel, duplication, translocation, lateral gene transfer or any other mechanism.]
Sir- all you're doing here is repeating everythign I've said. But what you are also doing is asserting that change in cell information is enough for evolution to happen which is false. You are also equating lateral gene transference with mutational changes which is also false. it is NOT the same- it is an introduction of NEW information that is absent from the host species, and is NOT a simple change in information in the host species of information already present. you're next paragraph is just more ofthe same false asertions.
[The reason science has started to look at lateral gene transfer and a whole number of other mechanisms is because that's what science does. The fact that they are looking for alternatives is not because the mechanism of mutation is being abandoned but because science never assumes that all the answers have been found. The work looking for mutations has not stopped even though that mechanism of DNA change is fairly well understood. However, because there is good understanding of how mutations cause morphological change, energy is being shifted to finding additional mechanisms for DNA change and to determining what changes to the genome produces which traits. The energy spent in one direction in science always changes as the knowledge base changes. It has always been that way. For you to assert that the change in direction is based on a failing of mutations to contribute to evolution shows a strong bias against the process of evolution on your part. Where science does abandon unproductive avenues rather quickly, the length of time that has been spent on mutations thus far (and we can anticipate into the future) indicates that it has not been an unproductive path in any way.]
I never said the work was stopped, or even suggested that it should be- knowlege is always an admirable pursuit- I did say that science is realizing that it is now more likely that gene transference is the only mechanism whereby NEW information necessary for evolution can be introduced. Mutations as they have found out are not a mechanism for creating NEW information. I do not show a bias against the study of mutations- the study of mutations IS a very improtant study for several reasons- I DO however present the facts that show it is biologigically impossible for mutations to create NEW information- please don't misinterprete what I am saying like that.
[If the only reason you assume lateral gene transfers are necessary is because they potentially add information then my questions and answers above address this point.]
No I'm afraid it totally avoided the issue of NEW information, and focussed instead on the fact that mutation study still agoes and and should- to which I agree- the point however that NEW information is absolutely necessary for evolution still stands on solid ground.
[Christian 'Scientists' are busy trying to make the evidence fit their hypotheses.]
Give it a break- evolution science and old earth science has done NOTHING but twist and manipulate evidences to fit hteir hypothesis. Don't stoop to such acusations. Christian science fits nothing- they simply present facts that clearly dispute previously fitted issues that are deemed to be fact wehen in fact they are nothing but speculation with nothign solid to back them up.
[You are going to have to explain yourself a little more fully and clearly here. Your assertions are just not enough.]
No sir- everythign needed was stated- the info for the gene was always present, and got reshuffled and manipulated, nothing NEW was created. If you care to look into the matter further, then it's up to you-
Not acting like a child.
You made an outrageous claim, and when asked to show proof, you didn't.
Then you were called on it.
And now you are running away.
You have made a complete fool out of yourself and have shown me that you are a complete blithering coward.
"Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Proof" Carl Sagan
Only one lazy here is YOU.
I didn't ask for much, he made a claim, I asked him to show proof of it and he weenied out and made an ass of himself.
Now you are doing the same.
Thanks for continuing to prove my point.
not running away- I could very well point you to it- but won't- simply because you insist it makes me look like a fool when infact the only fool is those who insist people follow their instructions or else be discredited- The fact is, the info is there just as I stated- Yep- we could settle this easily by my linking it- but now I won't and could care less if you're too lazy and not up to discovering something for yourself that you would view negatively- so you shall remain ignorant of easily attianable information all the while claiming the other is the ignorant one- speaks more about your lack of commitment and understanding on hte issues bneing discussed than it does about my intellect on the matter. Infact- I mayt just pm the link to those who don't act in a childish manner and who want it- just to be a big ogre on this issue.
I don';t mind adressing anything you might ask in a civil matter- but when you sink to the usual evo-advocate tactic of rersorting to insulting when the issues get too deep, then I'll not do so any longer. You can either take what I say or not- but the fact is, the fact of what I said is readily available to you- The fact I spoke of about Darwin is NOT an extraordinary claim in need of my extraorodinary proof- the fact is that the VERY ordinary proof is freely available to you should you decide to take your anti-
Christian chip off your shoulder and look it up.
The evolutionist knows he can't win a scientific debate of the theory. His only hope is to divert the discussion to something else.
He will likely use some personal attacks. He will question your real motives for doubting evolution. He will attack the credibility of any authorities you cite (and some you didn't cite). He will attempt to get you to defend yourself, defend the authorities he has maligned, or attack him. If he can get you to do any of these things, he has achieved his objective (which is to avoid talking about the theory of evolution).
It's not as though dinosaurs and humans don't coexist to this very day. It matters not the slightest to the philosophy of history known as "evolution" (in the wide sense). Passed off by certain philosophers and judges as "science" in the strict sense, it is a contrived version of history based up the arbitrary assumption that all physical processes have always taken place at the same rate and in the same manner. Find a brontosaurus today, and it will do absolutely nothing to diminish beliefs contrary to what has been published in the biblical texts from times of old.
You made a claim, then wouldn't back it up with proof.
All I wanted is to see your proof so that I could read it myself. And you couldn't even do that.
So now you are on a silly jihad.
But, keep it up, you make my point.
40% of the genome is indeed retroelements. How they got there is not always entirely clear. Also, these retroelements are not strictly viruses as they do not need to exit the cell in order to replicate. What a retroelement is is a piece of DNA that is converted to RNA and converted back to DNA, which is then reinserted in the genome. It's essentially a parasitic part of your genome, and the sequence is very recognizable as a retroelement. However, the retrotransposition sequence I described above (DNA->RNA->DNA) does not always need to happen. In some cases, there can be so many repeated retroelements in one area of the genome that the machinery can get confused and mistakes can occur during DNA replication (more accurately, during recombination), and the number of retroelements can thus increase.
Scientists know that at least 40% of the genome are these "retroelements" (which are mostly Alu retroelements) because their sequence is so recognizable. These elements may have played a role in generating genomic diversity during evolution, but on an individual level, they are nothing but harmful.
I realize that this explanation may not have been entirely clear, but to really answer your questions would take pages. Suffice it to say that you can test this hypothesis yourself. None of these Alu retroelements make any proteins at all (the typical understanding of what a gene does). But if you look up the Alu sequence, go to ncbi.nlm.nih.gov and paste that sequence into the BLAST database, you will generate more "hits" than you will with any other sequence you can come up with.
Thanks for giving an update on the Bandwidth Bomb. :o)
Maybe, just maybe he has seen the light. Or maybe he is on his way to the museum to see REAL history.
what part of their actual science isn't reputable? Peer reviewed findings by them aren't reputable enough for you? I'm sure you're not going to insinuate that simply being Christians they are exempted from 'real science' right? AIG's funding automatically nullifies their hard earned respect in the scientific world? Automatically makes their FACTS and evidences null and void? Please-
If you want to get right down to it- how about addressing the fact that scientists in the secular world have foisted complete lies onto the whole world time and time and time again, and dogmatically denied doing so? Wouldn't that as well disqualify them from any futre serious concideration in your calculation of things? Does that disqualify every single secular scientist? Does the fact that represent a BELIEF system every bit as faith based as religion disqualify them as you imply that it does ID'ers?
ID'ers use the VERY SAME methods of discovery and annalysis that secular scientists do- If you have problems with the scientific facts they present- do feel free to discuss them- but villifying their science due to the fact that they are 'deemed guilty of practicing science while Christian" is simply an attempt to avoid the hard scientific facts that they represent.
Can Christian scientists make mistakes? Sure- Can secular Scientists? Yes- and they have- for centuries.
This systematicly disqualifying their science due to their outside belief in God is disingenuous.
And by the way Dave- thanks for your efforts- much appreciated- there are a heap scientific facts presented by those folks that conveniently get tossed aside due to the sites faith beleifs- yet each article you presented in the links addresses the points and refutes the links ichmeunom brought up and presents evolutionists with serious problems that can't be explained away simply by villifying those who present them. People can scream 'pseudo-science' all they like, but the plain simple fact is those sites present scientific challenges that can't be ignored by serious scientists. Anyway- thanks for compiling that list- I've read most of what you posted over the past few years, but really didn't want to present icheumon with such an effort due to the fact that he'd simply ignore it and move on to other assinine doo doo and demand I answer everything perfectly or else. Typical Christian bashers tactics- avoid the cold hard facts, but keep the accusations flying and the 'questions' flowing ad nauseum- hoping for a slip up to use as amunition against the refuter.. Once that was accomplished, the cycle of ignoring and demanding would repeat itself. you handled it well though.
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.