Posted on 01/03/2006 12:16:26 PM PST by MRMEAN
Yes of course.
Do you have an actual argument, or just non-sequiturs and inane analogies?
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
Ok what do we have here a set a statements... just because someone with a degree says something its true? Do you believe Ward Churchill?
Widely accepted? It is widely accepted by liberals that that George W. Bush lied about WMD's is that statement true?
You know what Yogi Berra says about predictions...
It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future
Symmetry itself is not that remarkable no matter how it is generated -- nature is full of it. All that would be required is for a symmetry generating mutation to confer advantages on the host such that the symmetry would be conserved. In some cases, evolution actually breaks natural symmetry (e.g. flatfish eyes) when it has survival advantages.
"Yes of course."
What is it? Don't forget all the plants that would die from the flooding, or the ants that would drown, and so on.
And there is another set of people who regard it as "an irrefutable fact, never to be challenged because science says so."
Perhaps a quote from one of these people to illustrate your point?
I'd like to see one of those quotes as well.
It's one of the charges frequently tossed out by creationists, but they rarely follow up with anything resembling evidence.
Unfortunately I'm not a geneticist either, I only play one on FR. I would assume that it's the pattern found that would indicate these ERV sections. There are something like 2000 of them found so far.
You make a good point about the "mistake" in math tests. Another interesting mistake is the primate "Vitamin C" gene, that is broken in several primate species and humans in exactly the same manner. It fits with evolution theory that a primate living in a forest rich in fruit could lose the ability to produce vitamin C via harmful mutation and never be affected. Had the creature lived in another environment with no vitamin C in his diet, he would have died, and the mutation would have died with it.
It fits that science has also discovered that non-functioning parts of genomes accumulate random mutations at a steady rate, while functioning genes are identical across species and over time. That's because harmful mutations are not propagated, while mutations in "dead code" are. This demonstrates that natural selection is necessary for the continued existence of life. Without it, even a "designed" species would eventually die out because of harmful mutations.
Counting the random mutations in the dead code is another method of determining the time since two species split. The more mutations, the more time. And science has found that these clocks fit well with existing morphological estimates for species split.
The news hasn't yet sunk in to the general population, but I'd bet that with the recent microbiological information tracking DNA changes between species has added more confirmation to Evolution theory in the last year or two than has been accumulated since Darwin.
" You know what Yogi Berra says about predictions...
It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future."
Yogi new that it was a joke. Do you?
Your question is actually very insightful and interesting. There is a great "smear" of things that are probably closely related including ERVs, Insertional Sequences, Transposons, Integrons. Then there is replicative transposition, which gets closer, lysogenic viruses and lytic viruses.
And then Phase variation. There's a lot of new stuff in these areas and the picture is becoming clearer. There are even transposable viruses. Just about every combination of viral, protoviral, degenerate viral, etc. cn be found somewhere.
I think the illustration speaks for itself. What part of the illustration is difficult to understand? The argument that you ask for is simple. Random events are not like those of intelligent design. Pounding on the keyboard at random (for some reason) is not the same as intelligently producing a real report.
(And this needed to be explained)...
Ironically, that contains more true information than your prior posts.
Natural selection isn't random.
How long have you been stuck on stupid?
"I don't trust people that make predictions..."
Testable predictions are the bedrock of science.
And what information did you draw from it?
Soon as they can timelapse the creation of life from nothing, into a viable living creature I will stick with my beliefs.
I think you really ought to read a book - the Theory of Evolution has no more to do with the "creation of life" than Gravitational Theory has to do with the creation of matter.
I had a similar friend with a sixth finger removed from each hand. I told him he should search the world and marry a six fingered girl and he didn't think that was funny one bit.
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.