Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Time to Give It Up [Intelligent Design and Irreducible Complexity]
Seed Magazine ^ | 4/10/06 | Britt Peterson

Posted on 04/11/2006 5:11:24 PM PDT by LibWhacker

New research chips away at the "irreducible complexity" argument behind intelligent design.

Lehigh biochemistry professor Michael Behe and his cronies in the intelligent design community have attempted to poke holes in evolutionary theory using an idea dubbed "irreducible complexity"—the notion that complex systems with interdependent parts could not have evolved through Darwinian trial and error and must be the work of a creator, since the absence of any single part makes the whole system void. However, a paper published in the April 7th issue of Science provides the first experimental proof that "irreducible complexity" is a misnomer, and that even the most complex systems come into being through Darwinian natural selection.

"We weren't motivated by irreducible complexity," said Joe Thornton, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Oregon and a co-author of the paper. "How complexity evolved is a longstanding issue in evolutionary biology per se, and it's once we saw our results that we realized the implications for the social debate."

Thornton's team has been studying one example of a complex system in which each part defines the function of the other: the partnerships between hormones and the proteins on cell walls, or receptors, that bind them. The researchers looked specifically at the hormone aldosterone, which controls behavior and kidney function, and its receptor.

"[This pairing] is a great model for the problem of the evolution of complexity," said Thornton. "How do these multi-part systems—where the function of one part depends on the other part—evolve?"

Thornton and his co-investigators used computational methods to deduce the gene structure of a long-gone ancestor of aldosterone's receptor. They then synthesized the receptor in the lab. After recovering the ancient receptor—which they estimate to be a 450-million-year-old receptor that would have been present in the ancestor of all jawed vertebrates—Thornton's team tested modern day hormones that would activate it. Although aldosterone did not evolve until many millions of years after the extinction of the ancient hormone receptor, Thornton found that it and the ancient receptor were compatible.

This cross-generational partnership is made possible, Thornton explained, by the similarity in form between aldosterone and the ancient hormone that once partnered with the receptor.

"The story is basically that a new hormone evolved later and exploited a receptor that had a different function previously to take part in a new partnership," said Thornton.

The principal at work in the evolution of complex systems is molecular exploitation: when an individual component casts around for other materials that might work together with it, even though those elements might have evolved as parts of other systems.

"Evolution assembles these complex systems by exploiting parts that are already present for other purposes, drawing them into new complexes and giving them new functions through very subtle changes in their sequences and in their structures," Thornton said.

While the mutually dependent parts do not evolve to be perfectly complementary to one another, after molecular exploitation, they cleave together and create an illusion of irreducible complexity.

"Such studies solidly refute all parts of the intelligent design argument," wrote Christoph Adami, of the Keck Graduate Institute of Applied Life Sciences, in an introduction to the Science paper. "Those 'alternate' ideas, unlike the hypotheses investigated in these papers, remain thoroughly untested. Consequently, whatever debate remains must be characterized as purely political."


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: biology; complexity; crevolist; design; evolution; intelligent; irreducible
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-164 next last

1 posted on 04/11/2006 5:11:26 PM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Well, just show me macro-evolution in a lab and I'll sign right up...what's that? You can't? Oh...

*Note: feel free to attack me Darwin-bots, but I'm not buying (and the usual disclaimer: I am not pro-creationism.)


2 posted on 04/11/2006 5:19:55 PM PDT by ECM (Government is a make-work program for lawyers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Ping.


3 posted on 04/11/2006 5:21:05 PM PDT by Junior (Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Make sure you post this at least once a day for the next month I guess. We have feeble memories.


4 posted on 04/11/2006 5:23:48 PM PDT by bkepley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ECM
Darwin-bots...

That is a pretty rude greeting to fellow freepers with whom you may simply disagree.

You want macro-evolution? Here are some examples. I assume you will reject them, but others may find them more acceptable.

Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html

5 posted on 04/11/2006 5:25:21 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Interim tagline: The UN 1967 Outer Space Treaty is bad for America and bad for humanity - DUMP IT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ECM
This cross-generational partnership is made possible, Thornton explained, by the similarity in form between aldosterone and the ancient hormone that once partnered with the receptor.

"The story is basically that a new hormone evolved later and exploited a receptor that had a different function previously to take part in a new partnership," said Thornton.


So a hormone-receptor pair evolved because the hormone can bind with the receptor of a previous hormone-receptor pair.

And so that hormone-receptor pair must have evolved because the earlier hormone can bind with the receptor of a previous hormone-receptor pair.

"Why, it's turtles all the way down, of course."
6 posted on 04/11/2006 5:28:15 PM PDT by NonLinear (He's dead, Jim)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Doctor Stochastic; js1138; Shryke; RightWhale; ...
Evolution Ping

The List-O-Links
A conservative, pro-evolution science list, now with over 360 names.
See the list's explanation, then FReepmail to be added or dropped.
To assist beginners: But it's "just a theory", Evo-Troll's Toolkit,
and How to argue against a scientific theory.

7 posted on 04/11/2006 5:37:04 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Yo momma's so fat she's got a Schwarzschild radius.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ECM
"*Note: feel free to attack me Darwin-bots, but I'm not buying (and the usual disclaimer: I am not pro-creationism.)"

Such a lovely personality.
8 posted on 04/11/2006 5:40:58 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

This is a good example of the lack of objectivity of scientists who are predisposed to believe evolutionary theory. And creationists are also guilty of the same type of thinking at times. It is the human condition.

They "deduced" something that existed (supposedly) 450 million years ago using computers. They they whipped up some in the lab - "this ancient thing". Then they find that a modern day hormone complements it.

The level of presupposition is huge. The reliance on computers to make up something is staggering.

And voila! we've "proved" that there is no irreducible complexity is not a valid argument.

Believe it if you will. I find it unconvincing. We are now making up facts through "scientific method" and using made up facts to support a belief.

I know it will be accepted hook line and sinker around here by committed evolutionists, but I dont' find it convincing. I believe this is a human foible. It recurs over and over in these postings.

ampu


9 posted on 04/11/2006 5:42:11 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion (outside a good dog, a book is your best friend. inside a dog it's too dark to read)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
However, a paper published in the April 7th issue of Science provides the first experimental proof that "irreducible complexity" is a misnomer, and that even the most complex systems come into being through Darwinian natural selection.

Mathematicians do proofs; experimentalists obtain observations or data.

An experiment can disprove a theory, or it can provide data that is consistent with a theory. But it cannot "prove" a theory to be true.

10 posted on 04/11/2006 5:43:50 PM PDT by Logophile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

It's been about time to give it up since around 147 years ago.


11 posted on 04/11/2006 5:44:27 PM PDT by AntiGuv (The 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty is bad for America and bad for humanity - DUMP IT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

placemarker


12 posted on 04/11/2006 5:46:25 PM PDT by jec41 (Screaming Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ECM
"Well, just show me macro-evolution in a lab and I'll sign right up...what's that? You can't? Oh... "

I'll be happy to educate you. Tuition is $20K a semester. I'll get back to you when your check clears.

13 posted on 04/11/2006 5:47:11 PM PDT by muir_redwoods (Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
I haven't been so shaken in my beliefs since Brian Williams announced that Jesus had actually walked on ice covering the Sea of Galilee.

This does NOT, in any way, solve irreducible complexity. It is equivalent to claiming you found a bolt in the car that could be used with a nut in a different location, and this therefor shows how fuel injection evolved from carburetors...
14 posted on 04/11/2006 5:53:19 PM PDT by Mr Rogers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ECM
Well, just show me macro-evolution in a lab and I'll sign right up...

Just show me planetary formation in a lab. Just show me the big bang in a lab. Just show me. . .

Well, anything you don't want to believe in, really.

Serious cop out, but what the heck, eh?
15 posted on 04/11/2006 5:59:05 PM PDT by Filo (Darwin was right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
Thornton and his co-investigators used computational methods ...

I can make a computer say anything I want it to say.

"Computational methods". Programs don't write themselves. And this isn't the first time pro-evo's tried to foist computer "simulations" to "prove" evolution.

Science is the observation and measurement of phenomenon. Or at least that's what I learned in JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL science class.

Leave computer simulations to Michael Crichton when he writes his next novel.

16 posted on 04/11/2006 6:01:06 PM PDT by manwiththehands ("Rule of law"? We don't need no stinkin' rule of law! We want amnesty, muchacho!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: manwiththehands

" Science is the observation and measurement of phenomenon."

That automatically rules out ID.


17 posted on 04/11/2006 6:11:10 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion

You dare doubt the authority of a Computer?

I keep wondering how a single cell with three billion bites of information evloved so quickly. I mean at one mutation per year your looking at three biilon years. That sounds like a mighty fast rate of mutate.


18 posted on 04/11/2006 6:22:18 PM PDT by eddie2 (we're being tested)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ECM
You seem unusually defensive for someone who's in the thread on post 2. Especially when you claim to have no preordained issues.
19 posted on 04/11/2006 6:23:04 PM PDT by VadeRetro (I have the updated "Your brain on creationism" on my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: eddie2
I doubt you can expect that Nobel Prize just yet. The mutation rate for unicellulars is usually a lot better than 1 per day, much less 1 per year. We're talking about organisms that in many cases tend to divide every few minutes.

And then you have that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. And then you have that lots of experiments are going on in parallel with the best out-competing the rest.

Your model doesn't look very realistic.

20 posted on 04/11/2006 6:27:45 PM PDT by VadeRetro (I have the updated "Your brain on creationism" on my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion
" know it will be accepted hook line and sinker around here by committed evolutionists, but I dont' find it convincing. I believe this is a human foible. It recurs over and over in these postings. "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>................
right on..the old GIGO..put it 450 million yrs ago (like they could deduce receptor binding sites for animals living 450 million yrs ago with no tissue/proteins/dna/mrna/hormones on and on to test!!!!
this is brazen, they just assume it was like this because hey this is the receptor we got today..what crap science is reported as fact today.
21 posted on 04/11/2006 6:28:58 PM PDT by ConsentofGoverned (if a sucker is born every minute, what are the voters?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion
They "deduced" something that existed (supposedly) 450 million years ago using computers. They they whipped up some in the lab - "this ancient thing". Then they find that a modern day hormone complements it. The level of presupposition is huge. The reliance on computers to make up something is staggering.

Computers are just a tool. You can infer the sequence of a gene in a common ancestor without them; it just takes longer. But it's a useful demonstration of the technique, whose logic is transparent and difficult to refute. I taught a class of freshmen to do it a couple of years back.

Of course they were neither stupid nor irremediably prejudiced against the idea. Either would make it very hard to learn.

22 posted on 04/11/2006 6:31:29 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
" Science is the observation and measurement of phenomenon."
"That automatically rules out ID."

Oh, no. To the contrary: ID can easily be classified as science. The study of "design" is very scientific. "Observation" and "measurement". Observing and measuring "evolution" is screaming "EUREKA"! when a fruit fly finally "evolves" into "not a fruit fly but better". It simply hasn't been measured and it hasn't been observed. EVER.

23 posted on 04/11/2006 6:33:03 PM PDT by manwiththehands ("Rule of law"? We don't need no stinkin' rule of law! We want amnesty, muchacho!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: manwiththehands
Science is the observation and measurement of phenomenon. Or at least that's what I learned in JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL science class.

Too bad you seem to have stopped learning in junior high.

Computer calculations are indispensable in most fields of science these days.

24 posted on 04/11/2006 6:34:59 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: manwiththehands
Observing and measuring "evolution" is screaming "EUREKA"! when a fruit fly finally "evolves" into "not a fruit fly but better". It simply hasn't been measured and it hasn't been observed. EVER.

See the chart in post #5, upthread.

25 posted on 04/11/2006 6:38:16 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Interim tagline: The UN 1967 Outer Space Treaty is bad for America and bad for humanity - DUMP IT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

You will have to refresh my memory. I thought the earth was supposed to be about 5 billion years old and that life started about one billion years ago.

Are you saying that cells mutate everytime they divide? It seems that with a mutation rate like you describe life forms would be constantly mutating into other forms in very short periods of time.


26 posted on 04/11/2006 6:38:25 PM PDT by eddie2 (we're being tested)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: manwiththehands
" Oh, no. To the contrary: ID can easily be classified as science."

Only if you redefine science to include the untestable and unobservable.

"Observing and measuring "evolution" is screaming "EUREKA"! when a fruit fly finally "evolves" into "not a fruit fly but better""

This is not an example of an observation of a designer or a testable claim for ID. And it's also wrong.

"It simply hasn't been measured and it hasn't been observed. EVER."

Again, this, even if it were true (it isn't) doesn't make ID scientific. ID makes no testable claims, nor is the alleged designer observable.
27 posted on 04/11/2006 6:38:45 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: eddie2
"You will have to refresh my memory. I thought the earth was supposed to be about 5 billion years old and that life started about one billion years ago."

You DO need refreshing. The earth is about 4.5 billion years old and life is almost 4 billion years old.

"Are you saying that cells mutate everytime they divide?"

Pretty close.
28 posted on 04/11/2006 6:40:54 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: manwiththehands
"Programs don't write themselves."

Actually some do. Guess what this successful method of solving problems was inspired by?
29 posted on 04/11/2006 6:41:11 PM PDT by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

Don't forget, those mutations had to occur within, lets
say, the first billion years or so..you can't use the
whole 4.5 billion years...so if you work it out at
1 division every 20 minutes (per cell), and count the
numbers of cells, and the successful mutation rate
(i.e. the one that doesn't get corrected by correction
enzymes....oh, by the way, where did THEY come from?),
factor in bio. death rates of cells, DE-EVOLUTION (i.e.
DNA/RNA can back mutate too, can't it?), weather,
ozone, cosmic rays, heat, oxidizing molecules, precipitation problems...that should give you some idea of
how many mutations, and how much time, and how much
circumstances are needed. Appealing to time (Newtonian,
I suppose in your model) is not always going to help.
Someone has said that given enough time, the most
likely thing is going to occur. That usually involves
entropy, and destruction of formed materials. Some people think that given enough time, the most unlikely thing will occur.
P.S. what was the food source of the original bacteria...
did they come with biochemical instructions on how to
synthesis food, and exchange electrons, like from
O2, or Sulfur, or arsenic? ,....etc????
Or did the ones which had those properties already find "themselves" successful???? Chicken or egg,
enzyme, or DNA?


30 posted on 04/11/2006 6:44:44 PM PDT by Getready
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: eddie2
"Are you saying that cells mutate everytime they divide? It seems that with a mutation rate like you describe life forms would be constantly mutating into other forms in very short periods of time."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>....................
the biggest joke in science..mutations lead to new species ..just let one scientist force mutations on any life form and see if he gets a new species..never has happened and never will..the complex living system is beyond human understanding..DNA is information and someone for lack of a better word had the information encoded there much like a computer programmer provides the code for computers to operate..chance mutations result in death or disease not new animals.
31 posted on 04/11/2006 6:46:41 PM PDT by ConsentofGoverned (if a sucker is born every minute, what are the voters?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
But have they gotten a tornado through a junkyard to assemble a working automobile?

Until then I sticking with what good old JC said.

(I mean of course, Jack Chick!)
32 posted on 04/11/2006 6:47:17 PM PDT by somniferum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: somniferum
Until then I sticking with what good old JC said.

(I mean of course, Jack Chick!)

You have got to be kidding!

Your response to science, and the thousands of discoveries being made there, is Jack Chick?

Please tell me you forgot the /sarcasm line.

33 posted on 04/11/2006 6:51:32 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Interim tagline: The UN 1967 Outer Space Treaty is bad for America and bad for humanity - DUMP IT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ConsentofGoverned

In this case, I agree with you.
Many molecules interact with different receptor sites.
That's why a drug which is used for one medical condition
also causes many side effects. A billion different
parts (or what we say, moieties,) of a molecule
could look like something else to a receptor. Finding
some theoretical molecules interacting with a theoretical
receptor is not very specific...for some reason, people
seem to forget that molecules and simple chemicals are
in equilibrium with the different conformations that
they can achieve, so if they're bent one way, they may
look like a different molecule (or be able to bind with
a receptor that it usually doesn't at a high rate)
I think some people think that molecules are little
balls hooked up at certain areas, and never break up,
or never change their conformation, or neither interact
with other items in their very near environment..
The 3-D animations they show usually show much less of the congestion and possible interactions going
on in that tiny space...


34 posted on 04/11/2006 6:52:02 PM PDT by Getready
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Getready
well stated. the hype over "time" solves all of evolutions problems..can't hold water and junk science like this article are desperate attempts to explain away the impossible..would think hanging your hat on the old
over billions of years anything can happen..sounds more and more like roulette in Las Vegas. remember the rule of chance if I roll red 30x in a row the chance of hitting black on roll 31 is what? greater? lesser? the same?
yet the evolutionist think it will come up black time and time again until life emerges from the old primordial soup..well the soups cold and DNA becomes useless without the proper environment of multitudes of amino acids held within close proximity, with golgi app, mrna,trna, all appearing from the magical cold soup..what gamblers these evolutionist are.
35 posted on 04/11/2006 6:57:16 PM PDT by ConsentofGoverned (if a sucker is born every minute, what are the voters?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: eddie2
You will have to refresh my memory. I thought the earth was supposed to be about 5 billion years old and that life started about one billion years ago.


36 posted on 04/11/2006 6:58:27 PM PDT by VadeRetro (I have the updated "Your brain on creationism" on my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
That's a nice drawing of living fruit fly skulls evolving into living "not a fruit fly but better" skulls.
37 posted on 04/11/2006 6:58:36 PM PDT by manwiththehands ("Rule of law"? We don't need no stinkin' rule of law! We want amnesty, muchacho!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ECM
[Well, just show me macro-evolution in a lab and I'll sign right up...what's that? You can't? Oh..]



I know what you mean. That's the same reason I don't believe that the sun and other stars exist. They are probably just little balls of flame floating in our atmosphere just a few hundred feet up, and the idea that they're much larger than the Earth and powered by multi-million degree fusion is just arrogant atheist scientists' fantasy.
38 posted on 04/11/2006 7:00:43 PM PDT by spinestein (The mainstream news media are to journalism what fast food chains are to fine dining.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ConsentofGoverned
well stated. the hype over "time" solves all of evolutions problems..can't hold water and junk science like this article are desperate attempts to explain away the impossible..would think hanging your hat on the old over billions of years anything can happen..sounds more and more like roulette in Las Vegas.

Can't handle billions and billions?

How about millions then?

Do you have any scientific evidence that the fossils in this photograph did not evolve as portrayed in the chart in post #5, above?

Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)


39 posted on 04/11/2006 7:03:23 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Interim tagline: The UN 1967 Outer Space Treaty is bad for America and bad for humanity - DUMP IT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

I didn't think one was needed, but I guess on these threads.. sheesh ;)


40 posted on 04/11/2006 7:06:26 PM PDT by somniferum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Getready
One question that has bothered my small intellect is:
the Poppy flower bud produces opium, but opium as far as I know has no function for the poppy, other than man wants it for it's narcotic effect as is mimics endorphins at a mu receptor site. Did the poppy evolve to produce opium for man or did it just produce opium for no apparent evolutionary advantage, and how does this fit in with the whole evolution selects life best suited for survival-why waste valuable energy producing opium when it has no benefit for the plant??
41 posted on 04/11/2006 7:06:37 PM PDT by ConsentofGoverned (if a sucker is born every minute, what are the voters?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Getready
Don't forget, those mutations had to occur within, lets say, the first billion years or so..you can't use the whole 4.5 billion years...

Are you sure? What do we need at 3.5 billion years ago for a genome? Source?

(i.e. the one that doesn't get corrected by correction enzymes....oh, by the way, where did THEY come from?)

Looks like an advantageous mutation to me. What were you going to suggest and what's the evidence for your idea?

DE-EVOLUTION

Change is change, although if you start as simple as you can get there's simply more room to experiment in the direction of increasing complexity.

P.S. what was the food source of the original bacteria...

If you've actually been following this stuff (BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!)...

Well, if you don't know what science even says on the subject, how do you know it's wrong?

But I digress. You have something called RNA World, a bigger-than-cellular system-as-organism. The first cellular animals form as parasites off of RNA-World. As RNA-World gets eaten up, two things are happening. Photosynthetic plants are evolving from animals, and animals are learning to eat plants and animals. You can Google, right?

Anyway, my comment to eddie2 would seem to apply to you. You don't rebut science by being dumb as a stump about what science is even saying.

If you don't know what it says, how do you know it's wrong?

42 posted on 04/11/2006 7:07:29 PM PDT by VadeRetro (I have the updated "Your brain on creationism" on my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Getready

ping


43 posted on 04/11/2006 7:08:56 PM PDT by ConservativeAgenda (Don't rely upon others to stand up for what you believe is right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ConsentofGoverned
Did the poppy evolve to produce opium for man or did it just produce opium for no apparent evolutionary advantage...

The only evidence that it has no advantgage for the poppy is that you don't know of one, right?

44 posted on 04/11/2006 7:10:05 PM PDT by VadeRetro (I have the updated "Your brain on creationism" on my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: ECM
Well, just show me macro-evolution in a lab and I'll sign right up...what's that? You can't? Oh... *Note: feel free to attack me Darwin-bots, but I'm not buying (and the usual disclaimer: I am not pro-creationism.)

Calling attention to oneself with mindless drivel... is definitely NOT the Darwinian way to happiness and success. Instead, might I suggest throwing a dinner party for your friends? There is a lovely recipe for pastry puffs in the "downhome cooking" thread.

45 posted on 04/11/2006 7:11:43 PM PDT by BagelFace (BOOGABOOGABOOGA!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
Such studies solidly refute all parts of the intelligent design argument,... Consequently, whatever debate remains must be characterized as purely political.

Good article but they're not going to give it up anytime soon. There's quite a few anti-science descendants of monkeys around here who are irreducibly ignorant and quite proud of it!

46 posted on 04/11/2006 7:16:01 PM PDT by shuckmaster (An oak tree is an acorns way of making more acorns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConsentofGoverned

Im not an expert (despite the name ;) but I would imagine that opiates are alkaloids which act as a natural insecticide of sorts, much like nicotine does for tobacco.

Someone correct me if I am wrong.


47 posted on 04/11/2006 7:16:24 PM PDT by somniferum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
come come my coyoteman, your namesake would never be caught in such a trap..as you know the extrapolation of skull morphology is subjective at it's root. with out vital DNA your use of jigsaw puzzle pieces resulted in fakes more times than not. Piltown man strike a bell..many of the skulls in the series were not even found on the same continent. may be of children or mutations of same species or adults vs children..too much we do not know about this attempt to use fossil records inappropriately.
48 posted on 04/11/2006 7:17:25 PM PDT by ConsentofGoverned (if a sucker is born every minute, what are the voters?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

I suppose someone could have put that diagram together "in a lab"....

I frankly stopped reading the article at "cronies." No agenda there....


49 posted on 04/11/2006 7:20:32 PM PDT by Theo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: somniferum

love the name..but As another posted here just because you do not know one..well thats why I posted the question-and as a natural insecicide no that does not hold up- most plants produce toxins that paralize some insects ..ragweed for one, which we use for killing of human pests such as
lice.


50 posted on 04/11/2006 7:21:16 PM PDT by ConsentofGoverned (if a sucker is born every minute, what are the voters?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-164 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson