Posted on 02/19/2003 12:21:30 PM PST by vannrox
You've participated in how many crevo discussions, and you still don't get it? Science starts with a question, forms a hypothesis and then seeks evidence. If the evidence suggests that the initial hypothesis was inaccurate (this is important so pay attention), the hypothesis is altered to fit the data, not the other way around. It is a process that is completely foreign to Creationists.
Okay, you have nothing to say besides unsupported insults. The data is the same for everyone. Evolutionists, as this article shows and I and others have shown has no data at all that is in any way favorable to evolution. All that is being done is what evolutionists do all the times on these threads, twist the facts, spew half truths, and call everything 'evolution'.
They know it happened:
No they do not know how it happened which is the question that needs to be answered. They are ASSUMING that these were duplicate genes, they are ASSUMING that these genes joined together. They do not have the vaguest idea of how such a thing happened. In fact their strongest assertion from your quote is " It now seems that ". Seems is not a scientific word. Seems is not proof of anything. The whole article is just a long string of conjectures. The only thing known is that this gene is unique in humans and that it causes cancer in mice. The rest is just verbiage and for someone who calls himself a scientist to make such unsupported claims shows quite well that evolutionists are just a bunch of hacks.
That this joining would have killed our ancestors furthermore is proof that it could not have occurred without many other things happening at the same time which would have enabled the organism to survive this new combination. -me-
Who said it would have killed our ancestors? You?
The article. Did you read it? It said it would kill the mice, giving them cancer. We are descendants of mice remember? That's what evolution says, that essentially the first mammals were mice. So yes, it would have killed our ancestors. It is also not found in any other creature in the line from which humans supposedly descended. There is also absolutely no DNA from 21 million years ago to tell us when this change happened. It could have been 21 million, 10 million, 1 million, or even as recently as 100 years ago. Further, the 'scientist' shows himself to be a hack because he does not have the slightest idea (and does not even seem to care) what the heck this gene does! This is just more evo garbage looking through the genome as if it was some sort of numbers game. It is not science.
Then this one will go to 20,000 posts because it has absolutely no evidence for evolution.
What observations?
Has anyone seen a species transform itself into a more complex species? Of course not. However, we observe species reproducing themselves every day with progeny of the same species.
Has anyone seen a mutation which creates a more complex function? Of course not. However, every day we see mutations that kill and make an organism function a lot worse.
Has anyone even shown how a complex system such as the eye, the flagellum, or an organ developed step by step gradually in an evolutionary manner? Of course not. All we see are highly complex, highly interconnected systems working well together.
Tonight at 6pm on RadioFR! Interviews with Grover Norquist, John Hager and Michael Zak! Plus, Doug from Upland interviews Ted Hayes, homeless advocate and strong supporter of military action in Iraq!
Click HERE to listen LIVE while you FReep! HIFI broadband feed HERE!
Yeah well, we all know Michael Behe is an evo Uncle Tom.
/sarcasm
The hypothesis' being altered via a stretching method that would make the use of an Iron Maiden, seem like a paradise cruise. Please reread this article.
If a business proposal with facts like this were presented to a group of investors, not only would the investors reject the proposal, they would call all other investors in their arena and advise them to not give these charlatans the time of day.
Maybe we need to apply some capitalistic principles to the scientific community that has become so bold as to put this kind of nonsense on the table. PLEASE REREAD THE ARTICLE.
They KNOW these are fused duplicate genes, you moron, because the two original genes are still extent and the fused duplication exists only in the hominoid line. They may not know HOW it happened, but that is what research is for. Creationist do not do research. They automatically assume that God is responsible for every little movement of every little molecule and for them it is case closed. Actual real life research is only done by evolutionists because they want to know not just the WHAT but the HOW. Not knowing the HOW is not evidence for creationism, nor is it evidence against evolution (which are not the same thing).
In fact their strongest assertion from your quote is " It now seems that ". Seems is not a scientific word. Seems is not proof of anything.
"Seems" is perfectly legitimate in scientific writing. Science is not a dogmatic religion that hands edicts down. It is a description of what has occurred — and is thus hedged with such words. That you cannot understand this shows your complete lack of understanding of science (which is pretty apparent from your other posts).
The article. Did you read it? It said it would kill the mice, giving them cancer. We are descendants of mice remember? That's what evolution says, that essentially the first mammals were mice.
Proof positive you are a moron. Evolution does not claim man descended from mice. Our distant ancestor may have looked like a mouse (or a shrew) but that does not mean it was a mouse. That you conflate the two concepts shows a complete lack of the ability to discern subtle clues in written English. This is common of young children and the mentally retarded, but adult humans of at least average intelligence can parse the difference.
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.