Skip to comments.Those Defensive Darwinists
Posted on 11/22/2005 12:44:07 PM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo
click here to read article
Please, only one "theory" mentions a supernatural being. It sure aint' Natural Selection. It is the so called "Designer" who will remain unnamed.
Can someone please show me some fossils that support ID? Will someone please show me any type of physical evidence that ID is correct. (Evidence that Natural Selection is incorrect does not explicitly support ID. Just because "A" is wrong does not mean "B" is correct.)
Who is guilty of this dishonesty that you claim?
No. From a prior post of mine:
Another example was in an editorial I read recently:
Also be prepared to point out that contrary to bone-headed (and unsupported) claims that "it probably never was 'junk'", the fact remains that even though rare cases have been found of specific pieces of "junk DNA" (i.e. non-coding DNA) having some use, only an idiot would leap from that to the conclusion that "it probably never was 'junk'" on the whole, because a) the vast majority of "junk DNA" is non-conserved (e.g. "Comparative genomics has revealed that approximately 5% of the mammalian genome is under purifying selection.", leaving 95% of the genome "inconsequential" from a survival standpoint), a clear indication that it is, indeed, not used in the genome, among many other lines of general evidence supporting the same conclusion (is your correspondent ignorant of these, or just dishonest?), and b) specific tests of "junk DNA" have shown that if it's used at all, the use is extremely rare or subtle, because giant whacking swatches of it can be removed entirely without any kind of obvious harm to the animal.
For example: Megabase deletions of gene deserts result in viable mice. In short, the researchers snipped over 2.3 *million* basepairs of apparently "junk DNA" out of mouse DNA, then produced offspring mice which were entirely missing that DNA. The resulting mice were normal in all respects. As a press release states:Another specific piece of evidence is that the genome of the fugu fish (as well as other fish in the blowfish family) is remarkably "clean" compared to that of other fish (or other vertebrates), even other fish which are rather closely related. It's *missing* most of the DNA that other fish (and vertebrates) have that are collectively known as "junk DNA", and as a result has a genome that is nearly "pure" genes (i.e. coding regions) stripped of most non-coding regions. And the fugu gets along just *fine* without them. How and why its genome got "streamlined" by "cleaning house" of most of its "junk DNA" is a fascinating question which is being looked into, but the fact remains that if this "junk DNA" is all that critical and "actually" used for something after all, on the whole, then how does the fugu do so swimmingly (sorry, bad pun) without it at all?
"In these studies, we were looking particularly for sequences that might not be essential," said Eddy Rubin, Director of the JGI, where the work was conducted. "Nonetheless we were surprised, given the magnitude of the information being deleted from the genome, by the complete lack of impact noted. From our results, it would seem that some non-coding sequences may indeed have minimal if any function."
A total of 2.3 million letters of DNA code from the 2.7-billion-base-pair mouse genome were deleted. To do this, embryonic cells were genetically engineered to contain the newly compact mouse genome. Mice were subsequently generated from these stem cells. The research team then compared the resulting mice with the abridged genome to mice with the full-length version. A variety of features were analysed, ranging from viability, growth and longevity to numerous other biochemical and molecular features. Despite the researchers' efforts to detect differences in the mice with the abridged genome, none were found.
So I repeat -- there are very good reasons, based on testing and on the evidence, that "junk DNA" on the whole really is "junk". And that doesn't change even if a *few* specific non-coding regions end up being involved in gene expression or whatnot. Finding a few discarded items of value in the city dump doesn't magically change the whole thing into a mountain of pearls.
"Even the most hard-core junkologists admit that a significant portion of human DNA is probably dispensable. For instance, Ohno, now semi-retired from City of Hope, points out several reported cases of people born with millions of bases missing from their X chromosome. And yet, these people lead perfectly healthy lives, an indication that the lost bases probably add nothing to human life."That said, however, there has been a trend to rename such DNA to something other than "junk", since that is a somewhat misleading term, given how active some of it is, and the role it often plays in evolutionary novelty. Instead some have suggested the "genomic scrapyard" or some similar more evocative term.
A complicating factor is that evolution is adept at making use of, and building upon, things that start out as "random junk". For example, from Perspective: transposable elements, parasitic DNA, and genome evolution: "Of particular interest are transposable element traits that early evolve neutrally at the host level but at a later stage of evolution are co-opted for new host functions."
Furthermore, it's clear that the noncoding DNA has not been "designed" as such, because the evolutionary origins of most kinds of noncoding DNA are understood, and their evolutionary histories can be traced through cross-species genome comparisons. For example: A detailed look at 7 million years of genome evolution in a 439 kb contiguous sequence at the barley Hv-eIF4E locus: recombination, rearrangements and repeats .
Going to the core of your question, however, there *are* features in the genome which actually assist in increasing the efficiency of mutational improvements in the genome, but they hardly rise to the level of "thinking" or "designing", they just do things like raise mutation rates in response to environmental stress (e.g. times when the species might need to genetically adapt or die), or keeping redundant or obsolete copies of genes around as grist for the mill of recombination. All these methods of boosting the effectiveness of evolution are themselves well within the realm of features that could themselves have evolved, they don't look at all "designed" or "preplanned" or "irreducibly complex" or whatever.
Wow. You are the one that did that, not me. I am trying to show you why it was wrong for you to do it. Evolution is science, not socialism. You have been trying - repeatedly - to equate the pursuit of truth in science education with the most oppressive regime in history.
This is a conservative forum. You are not going to find many people here that like being called "nazi"; you ARE going to find many people here who actually know what one is. Call somebody a nazi, and you should expect some grief. I have been much kinder in this conversation than I have in others where I have been called a nazi.
Would you like me to call you a christo-nazi? Do you think that it is appropriate? Do you think that it is accurate? How would you react?
Sorry, there are some things even an ape won't do.
What is someone with a screen name like "Elsie" doing with a wife? Or vice versa?
Ever notice how the anti-evolutionists have nothing to add to these discussions in the way of evidence or research, but are very fond of spewing long bigoted tirades against people who actually understand science?
If you can *name* another scientific theory of the diversity of life, feel free to provide a curriculum for it.
Until then, stop whining. "ID" does not even rise to the level of a scientific hypothesis, much less a scientific theory. It's merely a propaganda campaign.
In other words, Darwinists want a permanent monopoly, and no dissention permitted.
Paranoid much? Feel free to dissent all you like. And we'll feel free to point out how your dissent is ignorant and fallacious.
They wouldn't even sit still for an agreement that the science teacher, almost certainly a Darwinist himself, could mention to the kids if he really felt like it that there was a stupid book in the library by some kook, if they really wanted to take the trouble to go look at it and risk getting a D in the course.
...because the "mention" was scripted to be deeply dishonest, the "stupid book" grossly misrepresented the facts on nearly every page, and the people pushing the "mention" were revealed time and time again to be pushing not science, but their religion.
So stop lying about the actual events, please. You're sounding like yet another grossly dishonest anti-evolutionist, and we have *more* than enough of those already.
If Darwin's theory is so blindingly and permanently obvious, why not allow some discussion about it?
Go ahead and discuss it all you like. Just stop lying about it, and stop trying to dishonestly push religion into schools in a Trojan Horse with "science" scribbled on the side, when it isn't.
Are we clear now?
All we ask is that the AECreationists and "IDers" STOP LYING, stop lying about their beliefs being actual science, and stop trying to get their lies taught to school students. I would think that wouldn't be too much to ask, but apparently it is, because it sure makes them screech like little girls.
Do even *you* believe this goofy twaddle?
For frick's sake, go to a LIBRARY or something and educate yourself before you try again.
And thank you *so* much for giving lurkers more evidence for the common stereotype of conservatives as gradeschool dropouts...
Please see my post 23 where I point out that it started in the article. If you want to call names, knock yourself out. I just hoped to facilitate some dialog into the discussion. Ain't gonna happen I s'pose.
Read the article.
Jonathon Witt, 'A Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute'.
So now the Discovery Institute is devoting it's resources to attacking evolution instead of providing 'evidence' of ID. Sounds like a desperate creationist tactic to me. Sounds like they realize their dream of redefining 'science' and getting ID accepted as the umbrella governing 'scientific' theory of everything, isn't going too well.
Time to get ready for their next effort, 'Intelligent Evolution', which is basically a retreat since it doesn't encompass all of science. But they will sell a lot of book and get a lot of donations.
You'll be waiting a *looong* time, Doc -- "mama" is just another AECreationist liar, making things up and posting them without any regard for the truth, or even any clear notion of how truth is actually determined.
Speaking of truth:
Furthermore, Hitler did indeed lean on *God* as support for his "ethnic cleansing":"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."Hitler's own handwritten notes, drawing an outline of his philosophy:
-- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
Hitler divided his study into five sections:1. The BibleUnder the first section, "The Bible -- Monumental History of Mankind", he lists these topics (among others): "2 human types-- Workers and drones-- Builders and destroyers", "Race Law", "First people's history (based on) the race law-- Eternal course of History".
2. The Aryan
3. His Works
4. The Jew
5. His Work
So it seems that Hitler was actually basing his racial view of mankind on *Biblical* foundations.Nazi SS belt buckle, with motto "Gott mit uns [God is with us]":
Nazi propaganda paper:
The headline reads, "Declaration of the Higher Clergy/So spoke Jesus Christ". The caption under the cartoon of the marching Hitler Youth reads, "We youth step happily forward facing the sun... With our faith we drive the devil from the land."
Ignorance & Lies
Stupidity & Lunacy
Cluelessness & Misc.
|1||ID is creationism||Quote a Bible passage and show it is wrong (pi)||God? Which god (insert FSM or Greek god)||[Quote any Darwinist website as though its superior because it supports Darwinism]|
|2||That's a allegoric story and evolution is not!||Jonathan Wells is a Moonie||You're trying to destroy science||You're no Christian!|
|3||Mutations are not random||Science-hater||Crusades||Spam thread with drawings of transitional fossils|
|4||You obviously dont understand science||You have no proof||Christianity is a form of communism||Forget your meds?|
|5||Problems with the Bible||ID is liberalism||Religion causes immorality||Look at how many scientists name Steve believe in evolution|
|6||Quote mining!||He is a charlatan||Liar for the Lord||That is very unchristian|
|7||It's not even a theory!||Youre a creationist therefore you are stupid||Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution||You drank the cool-aid|
|8||Youre stupid - I am superior - here is why||Were you there?||No dinosaurs on Noahs ark||Fundamentalist!|
|9||If you believe in ID you believe space aliens created us||Macro-evolution is only a creationist term||Hitler was a creationist||You want to establish a theocracy|
|10||Supernatural is not observed||Galileo||Slavery in the Bible||Is a snowflake designed?|
|11||There was not a Cambrian explosion||I pity you||Mortons demon||Thats not peer-reviewed|
|12||Spam thread again with drawings of transitional fossils and call the poster an idiot||[Quote a Jack Chick comic and claim guilt by association]||Who designed the designer?||Luddite!|
|13||Everything is a transitional||Insert idiotic Placemarker||Inquisition||Bad design is proof ID is false and shows the beauty of evolution|
Hitler worshiped Darwin....
Hitler was a creationist, not an evolutionist. He thought the Aryan race was created as the superior race. He didn't think Aryans and Jews had a common ancestor, as the ToE does.
Good example. If someone disagrees with you, they are a liar. Nice!
Ogre, no one is asking you darwinists to believe anything. All the ID folks are asking is for "equal time". Get it. Move over and quite blocking the aisle. Intelligent Design has every bit as much or more credibility than has darwinism. Are you (darwinist groupies)so insecure in your beliefs that you feel threatened by competing views?
from an interview:
Church of the Nazarene
Rev. Ron Moeller, Pastor
"There isn't very much interest here in intelligent design, because we think the most important thing is saving souls for our Lord Jesus. It doesn't matter if people believe in evolution as a way of understanding the flowers and meadows and animals of God's creation. People come to Christ sometimes by the Bible, but just as often by personal experiences of the Holy Spirit and are born again, sometimes by family or friends, sometimes, I hope, by their pastor. Intelligent design doesn't help at all, because it has no foundation in the Bible.
"It has come up a few times in our Adult Study classes, but the 'specified complexity' and stuff didn't attract much interest. Someone asked, "What does this have to do with the Bible?"
The Presiding Bishop said that "ID opens the door to pantheism and every kind of New Age cults. And it does not mention Christ or the soul, so it is not Christian, and doesn't seem to be good science."
"It [Intelligent design] is probably like one of these cults that come along every few years, like New Age. Maybe it will become its own church, like Scientology or Christian Science. I think in two or three years we will hear very little from them."
Evidence? Feel free to quote from Hitler even *mentioning* Darwin. We'll wait.
If Hitler was on my side, I'd throw a fit every time somebody brought it up, too.
See my prior post. Hitler was on your side. Feel free to throw a fit.
To correct your earlier comment:
Well, since Hitler simply beieved what the Bible wrote about the races and put his belief into action it's an important historical lesson.I am now starting my stopwatch to see how fast it takes GLDGUN to decide that instead of being "an important historical lesson", it suddenly "doesn't mean anything" once he finds the shoe is actually on his own foot.
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.