Posted on 08/07/2007 9:30:37 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
RIVERSIDE, Calif. – A research team, including UC Riverside biologists, has found experimental evidence that supports a controversial theory of genetic conflict in the reproduction of those animals that support their developing offspring through a placenta.
The conflict has been likened to a “battle of the sexes” or an “arms race” at the molecular level between mothers and fathers. At stake: the fetus’s growth rate and how much that costs the nutrient-supplying mother.
The new research supports the idea of a genetic “arms race” going on between a live-bearing mother and her offspring, assisted by the growth-promoting genes of the father...
(Excerpt) Read more at eurekalert.org ...
The gist of the story is that some placental minnows had higher levels of a gene called insulin-like growth factor two (IGF2). “The researchers found that the biggest genetic changes were in those species of the minnows that had developed placentas, supporting the Darwinian theory of natural selection,” the article claimed.
The researchers from UC Riverside believe that the male and female compete for control of the offspring. The male wants “fast fetal growth, so that his offspring will be the hardiest, best survivors and the ones who demand the most of the mother’s placental nutrients,” while the female gives all her offspring equal maternal care (i.e., equal levels of the growth hormone), “so that her nutrients will be available to support her and the offspring from all her matings.”
You have to laugh at the lengths the Darwinists will go to in trying to prop up Charlie’s idol. They did not see these fish evolve. They admitted that “The placenta is a complex organ of maternal and fetal tissues that nourishes the developing fetus in the uterus,” but did not explain how this complexity arose; they only found differing levels of one growth hormone. They admitted that their theory of genetic conflict is controversial. And they committed the usual grievous sin of the Darwinists, personifying poor little fish that don’t know their right fin from their left with goal-oriented actions and human patterns of conflict. This was not evolution in action. The only thing in action was the Darwin fogma machine (05/14/2007).
FULL ENTRY:
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200708.htm#20070803a
ping
You don't understand the science, so you have to trust that the creationist websites you crib from do. (They don't.)
I trust both sides. I trust the Darwiniacs to make continual fools of themselves, and I trust that Creation Scientists will be faithful to point it out. It’s pure comedy.
Why is there no Creationist representation in the biotech/pharmaceutical industry?
Every new drug, cell line, animal model, grant proposal, research study- all of them, at one point or another, describe their mechanism in the context of evolution.
Not talking about government or universities — this is private industry where billions are to be made (and just as many lives potentially affected) by products derived from capital investments.
None of which are ever justified in writing, seminars, or other presentation using Creationist principles.
Any guess why?
The theory of macroevolution is itself constantly evolving in conflicting directions, often at the same time. Some call it science, but many honest people better credentialled than you or I call it something else.
==Every new drug, cell line, animal model, grant proposal, research study- all of them, at one point or another, describe their mechanism in the context of evolution.
Pure BS.
“The biomedical sciences have flourished because they are experimental and have direct practical applications. But their success is based on a profound lack of interest in the question of how the organisms we study were formed. As long as we can fix the machines, we do not care how they were designed—and many rest content with the idea of a supernatural Designer. Evolution requires an interest in origins, and an acceptance of the different techniques needed to study them, which is simply not shared by many biologists.”
Bowler, Peter J., “The Status of Evolutionism Examined,” review of Monad to Man by Michael Ruse (Harvard University Press, 1996, 596 pp.), American Scientist, vol. 85 (May/June 1997), pp. 274-275. Bowler is on the faculty in History and Philosophy of Science, The Queen’s University, Belfast.
p. 274
“Ruse is a philosopher who wants to use history as a means of assessing the theory’s status as scientific knowledge. He asks why so many (and not just the creationists) remain skeptical of the theory’s scientific credentials. The answer, he argues, is that evolutionism has always been linked to a nonscientific value system based on the idea of progress.”
—Bowler, Peter J., “The Status of Evolutionism Examined,” review of Monad to Man by Michael Ruse (Harvard University Press, 1996, 596 pp.), American Scientist, vol. 85 (May/June 1997), pp. 274-275. Bowler is on the faculty in History and Philosophy of Science, The Queen’s University, Belfast.
I’m sorry, if you think evolution has much to do with drug research, other than susceptible bacteria being selected out of antibiotic-rich environments in favor of preexisting strains of immune bacteria, then you are deluded.
Evolution does not have to do with any material accomplishment of technology or medicine, because evolution has no predictive power.
That’s a funny little quote. Go get a job in research with it.
Make sure you place it in your cover letter, or better, scrawl it into your lab notes for reference at review time — right before you are fired for not producing anything.
It’s easier to take things on blind faith, and to ignore scientific data, when one simply regurgitates the party line set forth by the Creationist propoganda mills. Don’t let it get to you, Coyote...
One of your problems, and that of youre fellows, is you have no concept of what constitutes scientific evidence. Consequently, not only do you look silly to we who do understand, but you miss chances for legitimate criticisms. There is a deficiency in the analysis (or at least the reporting of it), but you’ll never figure it out.
Don’t tell me- tell the industries that strictly adhere to evolution in their publications and literature.
Tell them how they are wrong and could be doing better with Creationist views instead of evolutionist dogma.
==Go get a job in research with it...Make sure you place it in your cover letter, or better, scrawl it into your lab notes for reference at review time
Now we get to the heart of the matter. The Church of Darwin has managed to put a stranglehold on the IDEOLOGY of science. Any scientist who openly deviates from the party line is drummed out of the profession.
==One of your problems, and that of youre fellows, is you have no concept of what constitutes scientific evidence.
Sure I do, that’s why I’m busy refuting the myth of Darwinian evolution.
the same is true with global warming
==the same is true with global warming
Very true...and as usual, it is Darwinists leading the charge on global warming hysteria.
Did the new strains of Multi-Drug Resistant Tuberculosis evolve, or were they newly created? They didn't exist before, so I think it's one or the other.
Yes and the language and tactics used by the global warming advocates is very very similar. Deny evolution or global warming and you are compared to a flat earther.
I've never seen a "creationist" successfully refute a single thing, to say nothing of genetics/evolution, their apparent main target.
It appears to me that creationists fail so consistently because generally they have no idea of how to reason.
What I fail to understand at all is why there is any interest in pitching this game. We're not talking about some poltical movement here, we are only talking about men and women making a sincere effort to understand nature.
So, where's your beef?
==Did the new strains of Multi-Drug Resistant Tuberculosis evolve, or were they newly created? They didn’t exist before, so I think it’s one or the other.
The best evidence suggests that they were pre-programmed to adapt to a changing environment. What we are seeing is directed, non-random mutation.
Please come up with a single shred of evidence to support this rather astonishing statement.
I rather think you have it backward since it is science that demonstrates genetics change and science that puts the lie to the Gaeaist nonsense about "global warming". It is "darwinists" as you call scientists, that are leading the charge AGAINST global warming hysteria.
Yeah, like they drummed Phrenologists out of Psychiatry, and Humorism out of modern medicine.
Don’t forgot the brutal treatment given to the poor alchemists who were just trying to pave the streets with gold.
How could I forget the poor alchemists, not to mention the Astrologers.
==I’ve never seen a “creationist” successfully refute a single thing, to say nothing of genetics/evolution
“Avoid Debates. If your local campus Christian fellowship asks you to ‘defend evolution,’ please decline....Have you ever watched the Harlem Globetrotters play the Washington Federals? The Federals get off some good shots, but who remembers them? The purpose of the game is to see the Globetrotters beat the other team.
And you probably will get beaten.”
Scott, Eugenie C., “Monkey Business,” The Sciences (January/February 1996), pp. 20-25. Scott is Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education, Berkeley, California, and received his Ph.D. in Anthropology, Missouri University, 1974. Past previous position, Assistant Professor, University of Colorado at Boulder, 1984-86.
==What I fail to understand at all is why there is any interest in pitching this game. We’re not talking about some poltical movement here, we are only talking about men and women making a sincere effort to understand nature...So, where’s your beef?
Don’t you get it? The Church of Darwin is a rival religion that seeks to overturn our Judeo-Christian heritage:
“Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.”
Provine William B., [Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University], “Darwin Day” website, University of Tennessee Knoxville, 1998.
“Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.”
Provine, William B. [Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University], “, “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life”, Abstract of Will Provine’s 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address.
“It is no more heretical to say the Universe displays purpose, as Hoyle has done, than to say that it is pointless, as Steven Weinberg has done. Both statements are metaphysical and outside science. Yet it seems that scientists are permitted by their own colleagues to say metaphysical things about lack of purpose and not the reverse. This suggests to me that science, in allowing this metaphysical notion, sees itself as religion and presumably as an atheistic religion (if you can have such a thing).”
Shallis, Michael [Astrophysicist, Oxford University], “In the eye of a storm”, New Scientist, January 19, 1984, pp.42-43.
“Man is the result of a purposeless and materialistic process that did not have him in mind. He was not planned. He is a state of matter, a form of life, a sort of animal, and a species of the Order Primates, akin nearly or remotely to all of life and indeed to all that is material.”
Simpson, George Gaylord [late Professor of Vertebrate Paleontology, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, USA], “The Meaning of Evolution: A Study of the History of Life and of its Significance for Man,” [1949], Yale University Press: New Haven CT, 1960, reprint, p.344.
“I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. … For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.”
Aldous Huxley: Ends and Means, pp. 270 ff.
Sorry, I have long since ceased to value philosophers' opinions, particularly when it comes to science.
This one seems no different. His rebuttal to the evidence for the theory of evolution is to link "evolutionism" to "a nonscientific value system based on the idea of progress."
What a crock! I'm sure serious scientists everywhere are quaking in their boots over that winner!
Show this "best evidence" and whomever or whatever "pre-programmed" XDRTB.
(crickets)
The four temperaments (Clockwise from top right; choleric; melancholic; sanguine; phlegmatic).
I think I've seen melancholic on several episodes of cops.
==Please come up with a single shred of evidence to support this rather astonishing statement.
A cursory search produced the following results:
Global Warming & Evolution: Skepticism & Genuine Science
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/238739.htm
Global Warming Is Spurring Evolution, Study Says
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/06/060608-global-warming.html
Warming to evolution
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/060701_warming
All you have demonstrated is that scientists have opinions on things they know nothing whatsoever about, just like other people do. Witness the “scientists” that sign petitions stating that 1000000 “scientists” have agreed on something. This is not science, it is BS. It is a form of religion.
When anyone waxes large on the subject of metaphysics or religion, one thing you can ge sure of is that you are being treated to a line of BS. I don’t care if the BS is coming from a “Darwinist” a “Christian” a “scientist” or a clown.
BS is an irreducable part of the human condition and human discourse, and it is one best identified early on. It is part of separating the wheat from the chaff.
==Show this “best evidence” and whomever or whatever “pre-programmed” XDRTB.
Each organism was preprogrammed to survive. Now if your asking why there is death and disease in the world, read the Bible.
==Why can’t evolution be the result of “intelligent design”?
It could, but the evidence is against it.
That’s not evidence. So what is some evolutionists support global warming? Your statement was that there is a link between the two.
Show this “best evidence” and whomever or whatever “pre-programmed” XDRTB
I took your question to mean why would an intelligent designer allow drug resistant tuberculosis. If you are looking for evidence of non-random, directed mutation...there’s plenty.
He made a claim regarding science, and when asked to back it up he resorted to "read the bible."
That's apologetics.
I used to raise guppies.
I studied them closely and 86% of them were right-finned.
They did not know it though.
I did. And based on my experience and the polls, the vast majority of global warming hysteria is emanating from Darwinist circles.
==He made a claim regarding science, and when asked to back it up he resorted to “read the bible.”
You’re reaching (as usual), Coyoteman. I told him if he wants to know why there is disease and death in the world to read the Bible. As for evidence of non-random, directed mutation...there’s plenty.
==This is not science, it is BS. It is a form of religion.
Agreed. That’s why I expose the Church of Darwin for what it is...religion.
Yes,
Several reasons.
First, universities MANDATE ONLY evolution and remove any professors that try to say different (Iowa State University is one classic example).
Second, evolution has become a religion to many who teach it and will not be allowed to be challenged except by their straw man analysis.
Third, posts here by the pro evolution side use pure derision which is not unlike many who have taken their places as part of the educated elite in this country. It can not be challenged seriously no matter what.
Oh, please explain how every drug, cell line, animal model, etc. describe their “mechanism in the context of evolution.”?
Your post is strictly your opinion of how you believe things really are rather than how they actually are in this world.
Oh, one more thing...the classic prove a negative argument...why no representation in the biotech/pharm industry? So, explain why? a negative? I suggest you begin following the rules of common accepted logic that even liberals typically observe (not radical liberals).
Blind faith?
Those who believe in creationism are the most open minded and tolerant individuals I know. It is people like you who just spout out the trust science know all line.
Much of science theory is constantly in flux and only proven science is used in any meaningful industry.
Your smarmy comment on “creationist propaganda mills” is typical of a blind believer in this corrupt theory.
So why in hell did you come to the US anyhow? I mean other than to make foolish comments here? You could have done that in Jolly Old England where it is quite screwed up.
Our beef is that you have made evolution into a religion to be defended rather than openly debated. Your ilk hide in the shadows waiting for any “darwinian” thing to come out in order to pounce on it... as for your own experience as to
“I’ve never seen a “creationist” successfully refute a single thing, to say nothing of genetics/evolution, their apparent main target.
Your own observations do not serve the discussion well as no one probably gives a rats behind what your obs are...lol
“we are only talking about men and women making a sincere effort to understand nature.”
Uh, some I believe are making sincere efforts...however, quite a few want to limit debate and squash any evidence contradictory to their religion.
“It appears to me that creationists fail so consistently because generally they have no idea of how to reason.”
I am sure it does...but that doesn’t help you here. Perhaps a KOS convention where like minds go to re-affirm their own dogma would placate your irritation.
What’s that saying about none so blind as who won’t see? Open your eyes.
Or the oil industry?
Where are the Flood Geologists advising oil companies on where to drill based of their theory of how sediments were formed?
edssheppa,
Are you confessing your sin to us here eddy?
You have added no weight or value to this discussion.
Typical, smarmy & stupid.
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.