Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $77,199
Woo hoo!! And now less than $11k to go and only $2k to the yellow!! We can do this. Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Posts by ahayes

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • What Is Life/Non-life in Nature?

    08/14/2008 10:02:00 AM PDT · 723 of 725
    ahayes to metmom
    So, if the ocean levels have risen post flood, then most of the evidence in the way of sediment would be under the ocean, on the ocean floor.

    Yet another way that the flood model is exactly wrong, since sediment layers are thinnest on the ocean floor, and thickest on the continental plates.

  • What Is Life/Non-life in Nature?

    08/14/2008 10:00:43 AM PDT · 722 of 725
    ahayes to MHGinTN
    you don’t know at what point God will give you over to the bitterness which follows consistent rejection of His mercy in Christ Jesus.

    Per Hebrews 6, I'm already screwed. Unless you hold to the unbiblical notion of "once saved always saved".

  • What Is Life/Non-life in Nature?

    08/14/2008 9:58:03 AM PDT · 721 of 725
    ahayes to Alamo-Girl

    That really is not very convincing to me, and I’m sure it’s not to many other Christians as well. Either there was a literal global Flood 4000-some years ago or there was not. You say there was not. Many other Christians say there was. Since the two options are mutually exclusive, that means one or the other of you must be wrong. You think that you are right (otherwise hopefully you would change your opinion, there doesn’t seem to be a good reason for embracing an opinion one knows is wrong. . .), that means you must think that the others are wrong. This isn’t some squishy “believe whatever you think is prettiest” thing, it’s a historical event that either did happen or did not.

  • What Is Life/Non-life in Nature?

    08/12/2008 12:55:38 PM PDT · 654 of 725
    ahayes to hosepipe

    Bad news: You’re still a primate. :-(

  • What Is Life/Non-life in Nature?

    08/12/2008 12:50:49 PM PDT · 652 of 725
    ahayes to Alamo-Girl

    Not sure what the point of this post is. Obviously my and your interpretation of past discussions between yourself and others is going to vary, however, your post was written to me about our current discussion. If you’re accusing me of any of these tactics, please let me know, otherwise this isn’t really relevant.

  • What Is Life/Non-life in Nature?

    08/12/2008 12:44:16 PM PDT · 650 of 725
    ahayes to hosepipe

    born again =/= AG’s Adamic/non-Adamic distinction

  • What Is Life/Non-life in Nature?

    08/12/2008 12:43:23 PM PDT · 649 of 725
    ahayes to Alamo-Girl
    When it comes to God, the majority view is most likely quite wrong:

    Dangerous ground. You don't consider it prideful to think that you alone know the Truth, and all other Christians are mistaken and probably not Christian anyway?

  • What Is Life/Non-life in Nature?

    08/12/2008 12:41:57 PM PDT · 648 of 725
    ahayes to hosepipe
    Swimming out of the latrine you've stumbled into, and batheing might clean you up right up..

    Goodness, I bet you're glad you are not like other men.

  • What Is Life/Non-life in Nature?

    08/12/2008 12:34:56 PM PDT · 645 of 725
    ahayes to Alamo-Girl
    That is certainly true but if that is the reason for the anti-Christianity sentiment I have observed, then obviously the debate is neither intellectual nor academic but rather, it is about earthy power.

    Why not all? It's definitely necessary to pay attention when a powerful group is lobbying to pass laws to require you to live by their standards. This does not mean you can't have an intellectual and academic disagreement with their position.

    And you might have noticed that "insult" is rather built-into theological debate because it seems every time a new belief springs from another one, both sides insult each other as matter of doctrine.

    Absolutely. That was one of the things that really started to bother me while I was still a Christian. At one board the Calvinism/Arminianism debate forum had to be shut down because each side claimed moral authority and then mercilessly bludgeoned the other with it.

    Discussions about religion are fundamentally inclined towards "holier-than-thou" arguments, since they tend to involve morality. In an argument about a scientific topic, a person can be mistaken or even ignorant (a situation that can be rectified), but in an argument about religion a person is more likely to be called wrong or morally debased (not so easy to fix). I couldn't count the number of times I've seen the "God, thank you that I am not like other men" speech in one guise or another.

  • What Is Life/Non-life in Nature?

    08/12/2008 12:21:35 PM PDT · 640 of 725
    ahayes to Quix
    What’s condescending?

    Would you consider a post by a Christian to a non-Christian saying, "The fool has said in his heart, there is no God" as condescending? (AG has at least not said this recently, so just speaking in general terms.) If not, I guess there's not much point in talking about this.

    If rationalizing my professional opinion as a bias helps your biases—help yourself.

    Why should being a psychologist make you less vulnerable to human frailty than others? If that were so, psychiatrists wouldn't ever need psychiatrists.

    I've been in the position where a person has been a jerk while arguing on my side and I've overlooked it, only to realize in a different context, hmm, that person really is kind of a jerk. Hopefully I will remember this! :-D

  • What Is Life/Non-life in Nature?

    08/12/2008 12:16:20 PM PDT · 637 of 725
    ahayes to Alamo-Girl
    I personally eschew all of the doctrines and traditions of men across the board

    Why? Just because something is accepted doctrine or is a traditional interpretation does not mean that it is worthless. It's often quite the opposite. In Christianity many ideas achieved the level of doctrine because they were much debated and consistently shown to be the positions best supported by the Scripture.

    As I have testified before, Scriptures are Spiritual per se - they contain the words of God - and therefore, they cannot be discerned like ordinary words.

    The trouble is that you are discerning meanings to these words that have not been detected by the majority of Christians at the present time and through the past. Either God is not so good at communicating his thoughts, or he speaks specially to you among many, or you have a creative mind and may draw conclusions that are not really supported.

  • What Is Life/Non-life in Nature?

    08/12/2008 8:47:25 AM PDT · 626 of 725
    ahayes to Quix
    Perhaps you feel that way because you're on her side. To me the above post seems quite condescending. I can do condescending, but if I do I usually try to either do it directly to you or way behind your back, not on the same thread talking to someone else. Unless I'm really ticked. ;-)
  • What Is Life/Non-life in Nature?

    08/12/2008 8:35:02 AM PDT · 624 of 725
    ahayes to Quix

    That we will. LOL.

  • What Is Life/Non-life in Nature?

    08/12/2008 8:34:41 AM PDT · 623 of 725
    ahayes to Quix
    I think The Lord burned the insult gene out of Angel-Gal some years ago.

    I've been on way to many Christian forums to believe that hooey. Many times obnoxiousness is positively correlated with one's perceived relationship with the Lord. I'd much rather debate someone who's smarter than thou than someone who's holier than thou.

  • What Is Life/Non-life in Nature?

    08/12/2008 8:28:10 AM PDT · 620 of 725
    ahayes to hosepipe
    What would be gained?..

    What would be gained from discussing the biblical text??? Shocking! :-D

  • What Is Life/Non-life in Nature?

    08/12/2008 8:26:35 AM PDT · 619 of 725
    ahayes to Alamo-Girl
    For instance, many religions have creation beliefs but the greatest number and loudest arguments are made against Christians. The Jews and Muslims are pretty much ignored along with all the others.

    Wild guess, but this could be due to the fact that Christianity has much greater influence politically in the US than Judaism and Islam. Judaism is also less likely to take the anti-scientific positions of evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity. How about you convert to Islam and try to argue against the theory of evolution and I'll take you up on that as well.

    And I see you have the "obliquely insult others" Religion Forum shtick down pat.

  • What Is Life/Non-life in Nature?

    08/12/2008 8:17:47 AM PDT · 618 of 725
    ahayes to Quix

    The human species has gone through various bottlenecks, but not down to 8 individuals, and not within the last 4000 years. Such a bottleneck would be glaringly unmistakable due to the immense reduction in genetic diversity that would be required. Our species has a much greater range of genetic diversity than the Flood would allow for. An important piece of evidence is the Y chromosome—only one Y chromosome would have survived the Flood, Noah’s. With the variation in Y chromsomes in the human population today, that is simply impossible.

  • What Is Life/Non-life in Nature?

    08/12/2008 8:14:36 AM PDT · 617 of 725
    ahayes to Alamo-Girl

    Your distinction between “Adamic” men and “non-Adamic” men is unorthodox and extrabiblical. It is a distinction that the Bible does not make. The word neshamah is used in the Old Testament to refer to any member of the human species (including pagan civilizations such as the Hittites and Canaanites, Deut. 20:16-17) and expanded upon in the Flood account to include any other air-breathing creature. Any other interpretation is simply not in the text. The biblical account does not give any room for such flights of fancy.

  • What Is Life/Non-life in Nature?

    08/11/2008 1:15:12 PM PDT · 582 of 725
    ahayes to hosepipe

    The Bible offers an expansive list of what got killed, basically amounting to everything. I can expound if you like.

  • What Is Life/Non-life in Nature?

    08/11/2008 1:13:58 PM PDT · 580 of 725
    ahayes to Alamo-Girl

    Well, it failed in its purpose, then, since the population was not reduced to 8 people.

  • What Is Life/Non-life in Nature?

    08/11/2008 1:08:41 PM PDT · 578 of 725
    ahayes to Marysecretary

    When you live on the banks of a large river, like many early civilizations, floods are extremely relevant.

  • What Is Life/Non-life in Nature?

    08/11/2008 1:05:31 PM PDT · 574 of 725
    ahayes to MHGinTN

    I know, many people find that particular passage extremely irritating. Take it up with Paul—I didn’t write it!

  • What Is Life/Non-life in Nature?

    08/11/2008 1:04:50 PM PDT · 572 of 725
    ahayes to hosepipe
    During "floods" some places are high and dry.. ALWAYS.. even lately in New Orleans..

    Not in Noah's Flood, as the Bible clearly states.

    "Flood" is a nebulous word..

    I understand the meaning of the word "is" can be debatable as well.

  • What Is Life/Non-life in Nature?

    08/11/2008 1:03:31 PM PDT · 569 of 725
    ahayes to hosepipe

    But that is not what the Bible says. The Bible says the earth was covered and everything drowned.

  • What Is Life/Non-life in Nature?

    08/11/2008 1:02:48 PM PDT · 568 of 725
    ahayes to MHGinTN

    Come on, I know you must have a Bible. Genesis 7 sets up the timeline very specifically.

    2nd month, 17th day: Flood begins.

    40 days, 40 nights rain.

    150 days duration the earth is covered completely.

    150 days duration the waters receded.

    7th month, 17th day: landfall on the mountains of Ararat.

    10th month, 1st day: mountaintops all visible.

    40 days: release of various birds, 2nd dove returns with an olive leaf, 3rd dove does not return.

    1st month, 1st day: The water is dried up from the earth. The catastrophe is officially over, God swears not to wipe out the population again by flood.

  • What Is Life/Non-life in Nature?

    08/11/2008 12:56:22 PM PDT · 566 of 725
    ahayes to MHGinTN
    Sorry my FRiend, I cannot agree with your characterization for it paints God as petulent, ultimately.

    So true!

    For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH." So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.

    You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"

    On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?

    Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?

    What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?

    And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.

    Romans 9:17:23

    You'll note Paul never answers the question, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" He just says, "Suck it up, God gets to do what he wants." God apparently picks some people and hardens them towards him, resulting in their doing evil acts, and then shows the chosen few how lucky they are by destroying the wicked, who never really had a choice ("who resists His will?")! Of course, he could just have made everyone be good in the first place, but then he couldn't demonstrate his "patience" before napalming his chosen bad people into ashes.

    Damned people: Sucks to be you!

  • What Is Life/Non-life in Nature?

    08/11/2008 12:42:36 PM PDT · 561 of 725
    ahayes to MHGinTN
    Gen. 6:13 "Then God said to Noah, "The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence because of them; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth.""

    Gen. 6:17 "Behold, I, even I am bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall perish."

    Gen. 7:23 "Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark."

    I don't think God is interested in your PR campaign. He seems to want everyone to know that he planned and carried out the destruction of the world.

  • What Is Life/Non-life in Nature?

    08/11/2008 12:20:45 PM PDT · 557 of 725
    ahayes to hosepipe
    A flood would not have to be global in the sense of global unundation.. All it would have to do is effect all the food chains negativly to blot out most life.. Which is "the spirit" of the biblical verses(creationists hold to).. the intent.. the end result..

    Looking for flood lines in strata at every level would be quite silly.. overlooking the intent of the scripture and missing "the point".... only to make a reverse point.. in error..


    Then the flood came upon the earth for forty days, and the water increased and lifted up the ark, so that it rose above the earth. The water prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered.

    All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind; of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died.

    Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark.

    Genesis 7:17-23

    Looks pretty explicit to me. All the earth was covered, everything died, the only things left alive were the creatures on the Ark.

  • What Is Life/Non-life in Nature?

    08/11/2008 12:13:14 PM PDT · 555 of 725
    ahayes to Alamo-Girl; Coyoteman
    Interesting. IIRC, you are not a young earth creationist (do not think the earth is necessarily 6000 years old max). This means you must disagree with what many posters here think is the accurate, literal interpretation of the creation account. You appear to also have a different interpretation of Noah's Flood. The most literal interpretations have this being a global flood that left not one square centimeter of land exposed and killed every human except for Noah's family. Here you interpret the Flood as being a conglomeration of floods, droughts, wildfires, earthquakes, and volcanoes. Moreover, this catastrophe did not result in the death of every human being not on the Ark (which I suppose you think was real, but only involved in Noah's salvation from local flooding) but every major civilization. For each of these major civilizations that fell during this protracted set of catastrophes (spread out apparently over decades to centuries, while the traditional Flood started and finished in the span of a year) other groups provide evidence for continual, unbroken habitation.

    So we have a flood that was not a flood, which destroyed civilizations but not populations, and took place over about a century or more instead of a year. How does this even vaguely resemble the biblical account?

  • Are there any other "agnostic" types here who look at evolution as an extremely dubious theory?

    08/10/2008 10:56:01 AM PDT · 82 of 82
    ahayes to Not just another dumb blonde
    Why should I believe this world is 50 million years old?

    Psst--4.5 billion years old. You have to go back further than 50 million years just to find the dinosaurs.

  • Are there any other "agnostic" types here who look at evolution as an extremely dubious theory?

    08/10/2008 10:53:45 AM PDT · 81 of 82
    ahayes to ETL
    Sad that an entire book was written based upon that. Cairn's phenomenon has been studied and is extremely well understood. You can read a paper about it here open access. A short version: the lactase gene was mutated in this bacteria to inactivate it, but it still had some tiny trace of activity. This trace activity provided a benefit to the bacteria when chance duplications of regions of the genome produced in some bacteria multiple copies of the broken lactase gene (not as good as a fully-functioning gene, but enough copies of the mutated protein would allow bacterial growth). The presence of multiple copies allowed chance mutation to hit upon the reverse mutation more rapidly than expected, like buying multiple lottery tickets. Voila, apparent "directed" evolution. There is a concrete record for every step of the process, with the intermediate genotypes studied and the steps of the transition reported in this paper.
  • Human Evolution: Tale of the Y

    08/10/2008 10:38:15 AM PDT · 47 of 59
    ahayes to Theo

    The use of DNA by all living organisms provides evidence that a organism utilizing DNA was the common ancestor of all.

    It appears that probably before DNA evolved RNA was utilized for information storage. The evolution of the ability to synthesize DNA enabled a transition from RNA to DNA. RNA use is retained by some viruses.

    There may have been alternative nucleic acids (different sugars, different bases) that also were present at the earliest stages of the evolution of life, but first RNA and then DNA out-competed these.

  • Exploding Asteroid Theory Strengthened By New Evidence Located In Ohio, Indiana

    07/03/2008 9:54:56 AM PDT · 50 of 69
    ahayes to bezelbub
    If you want to proselytize, please visit the religion forum, where you'll find gentle minds eager to discuss with you the pro and cons of various religious beliefs in a very civil manner.

    You must be talking about a different Religion forum.

  • Exploding Asteroid Theory Strengthened By New Evidence Located In Ohio, Indiana

    07/03/2008 7:23:48 AM PDT · 32 of 69
    ahayes to blam

    Clearly science is about as newsworthy as Paris Hilton, although possibly less interesting. *headdesk*

  • California Supreme Court Backs Gay Marriage

    05/16/2008 8:37:28 AM PDT · 491 of 613
    ahayes to TraditionalistMommy

    I can always tell an argument’s getting good when the phrase “Look, lady . . .” shows up!

  • Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design (A Libertarian Agnostic's View)

    05/08/2008 8:05:38 AM PDT · 45 of 162
    ahayes to Amendment10

    You’re complaining because we haven’t carried out a 3 billion year experiment in the past 150 years? Doesn’t that seem a little unrealistic?

    You misunderstand the way science works. We don’t have to go back and rerun an evolutionary step in order to know that it occurred. We have genetic evidence that is consistent, we have fossil evidence that is consistent, and we have mechanisms for genetic change that are sufficient. All of the data works together to produce a coherent whole.

  • Ancient bird is missing link to Archaeopteryx (rational caucus)

    05/08/2008 7:55:12 AM PDT · 33 of 33
    ahayes to Amadeo; Coyoteman
    Archaeopteryx means “ancient wing” not “first bird”.

    Like Coyoteman said, it is called the urvogel sometimes, and that means "first bird".

    It is not a decendent of aves.

    Some classify it in Avialae, a group containing some other basal birds and feathered dinosaurs and also containing Aves. Others place it as the most basal member of Aves.

    And it did not fly, although some recent renderings have it perched on tree limbs and flying all over the place.

    Archaeopteryx was capable of powered flight, although more clumsily than modern birds. It probably chiefly used its wings for wing-assisted incline running.

    We think that it was probably cold-blooded and that the feathers were used for temperature regulation and catching prey, as well as flapping and jumping.

    Who is "we"?

    Did birds descend from dinosaurs? Maybe. But not from archaeopteryx.

    Transitional fossils are not species that were direct ancestors of living species, but occurring along the line of descent. Pretty much everyone places Archaeopteryx on the line to Aves, either basally in Aves or preceeding Aves in Avialae. This does not mean that modern birds are descended from Archaeopteryx specifically, but that Archaeopteryx typifies a stage in the transition from dinosaur to bird.

    It is a controversial dinosaur.

    Not really.

  • Platypus Genome Is As Weird As It Looks

    05/07/2008 1:17:59 PM PDT · 72 of 86
    ahayes to ucantbserious
    Your Archaeocetes is in the wrong spot. And Indohynus probably deserves a spot in front of Pakicetus.
  • Platypus Genome Is As Weird As It Looks

    05/07/2008 12:18:25 PM PDT · 61 of 86
    ahayes to Publius6961
    In their universe, that original statement makes no sense; that a biological feature will evolve, to satisfy a need thousands, perhaps millions of years later.

    Ehh wot? Platypus milk is perfectly serviceable in feeding baby . . . platypi? platypuses?

  • Postmodernism At Work

    05/07/2008 12:07:55 PM PDT · 273 of 287
    ahayes to Hank Kerchief

    When I imply things, I’m often snide, but never snyde. However, in this case you inferred something that I did not imply.

  • Darwin, Hitler, and the Culture of Death

    05/07/2008 11:47:41 AM PDT · 88 of 103
    ahayes to wagglebee; Soliton

    Concur with Soliton, the idea of selective breeding goes back far before Darwin, who merely observed that populations experience natural selection in the absence of any human interference.

    Hitler’s statements rely heavily upon human breeding of plants and animals to produce strains with collections of traits we consider desirable, and the dilution of these traits upon interbreeding of two different strains. There is nothing about, say, labrador retrievers that make them “better” than huskies, but a human might object to interbreeding the two strains since the offspring probably would combine traits in ways we don’t necessarily desire in a dog. This says nothing about the inherent value of the offspring (labrahusky?), it’s a human opinion based upon ideas that might or might not be defensible.

    The observation of natural selection (slow rabbits get eaten!) is insufficient to draw conclusions for moral behavior. Attempting to do so is illogical and irrational (see Hume’s guillotine). Hitler did not base his motivation for eradication of the Jews upon the premise that ‘slow rabbits get eaten’, but upon the religious notion that his race best typified the image of God, so breeding with other lineages would dilute desirable traits and debase the image of God. This, IMO, is an indefensible opinion.

  • Darwin, Hitler, and the Culture of Death

    05/07/2008 10:35:01 AM PDT · 83 of 103
    ahayes to wagglebee

    Hitler on the Jews: “Their whole existence is an embodied protest against the aesthetics of the Lord’s image.”

  • Postmodernism At Work

    05/07/2008 10:23:42 AM PDT · 268 of 287
    ahayes to Hank Kerchief
    I think it is the cowardice of second-rate self-styled “scientists” who would not be allowed to wash bottles in the labs weatherwax managed, because they are afraid of being exposed as the frauds they are by a first rate mind.

    So were most of the scientists here banned last year at their own request in a devious attempt to maintain the illusion that FR tends towards anti-scientific viewpoints? Well, yes, that is part of the conspiracy. . . Snorfle again!

    And what’s wrong with you people calling everyone with a different point of view a “troll.”

    I didn't say she was a troll, I said it's not surprising she got the zot from bashing the US of A. There's a predictable outcome.

    Since you feel so strongly I suggest you go back to that other thread and expound. In great length. For my amusement. :-D

  • Chattanooga: Hikers packing concealed heat

    05/07/2008 8:08:02 AM PDT · 3 of 78
    ahayes to neverdem

    Finger off the trigger, I see. Nice to see someone who knows how to hold a gun.

  • Ancient bird is missing link to Archaeopteryx (rational caucus)

    05/07/2008 8:02:29 AM PDT · 29 of 33
    ahayes to Blood of Tyrants
    The structures are not modern feathers, say the roughly half-dozen Western paleontologists who have seen the specimens.

    Yep, half a dozen say that, and all the rest say that they're wrong and those are feathers.

    The hype about feathered dinosaurs in the exhibit currently on display at the National Geographic Society is even worse, and makes the spurious claim that there is strong evidence that a wide variety of carnivorous dinosaurs had feathers.

    We've found undeniable feathers on multiple dinosaur species now, such as Caudipteryx, Microraptor gui, and Pedopenna. Many more dinosaurs preserve filamentous protofeathers. The theropod Velociraptor has quill knobs on its forearms showing that it had true vaned feathers, although we have not found a fossil preserving these feathers yet. (Since feathers are much more fragile than bone, even many bird fossils are found without hints of feathers.)

  • Ancient bird is missing link to Archaeopteryx (rational caucus)

    05/07/2008 7:50:49 AM PDT · 28 of 33
    ahayes to Amadeo
    Whoa. You think Archaeopteryx is a dinosaur? Most creationists say it's a bird. That means it must have so many traits of both that it could fit into either group, and that means it is--gasp!--a transitional species!
  • Postmodernism At Work

    05/07/2008 7:43:34 AM PDT · 262 of 287
    ahayes to Hank Kerchief
    Snorfle! She could troll scientists to her heart's content and not get banned, perhaps you should be soliciting the people to whom she addressed this for an appeal.
  • Darwin, Hitler, and the Culture of Death

    05/07/2008 7:13:16 AM PDT · 71 of 103
    ahayes to count-your-change
    You have some examples of this? It would be passing strange since according to the book, “Landmarks in the Life of Stalin”, young Stalin thought highly of Darwin.

    Things change. The communist government championed a horticulturist named Lysenko, who embraced a form of Lamarckianism. Before Darwin Lamarck supposed that creatures changed by the inheritance of acquired traits. If you spend a lot of time running and develop strong leg muscles and lungs, then Lamarck thought that your baby would inherit these traits developed during your lifetime. This idea was in direct opposition to Darwin's theory of evolution, which said that populations contain a lot of variation and this variation is passed on to the offspring without modification. The change over time comes from natural selection filtering the variants, resulting in higher reproductive success for some variants than others.

    Of course in Darwin's time the details of inheritance were not known. Mendel published his work on inheritance then, but it was not well known until after his death. When Mendel's work was rediscovered geneticists realized that inherited traits were passed on in genes (although at the time they still didn't know what genes were!) Geneticists started working with plants, breeding them and studying their chromosomes.

    It's hard to say why the communist government found Lysenko's ideas so appealing, perhaps because he was their representative of the "common man" who had arisen and thrown over the ideas of bourgeois foreigners. At any rate Mendelian genetics went far far out of favor, and geneticists who didn't abandon their evolutionary ideas and embrace Lysenkoism were imprisoned and even killed.

  • Postmodernism At Work

    04/30/2008 2:32:30 PM PDT · 115 of 287
    ahayes to Hank Kerchief
    The fact that the "nurse" happens to be a degreed geneticist who has both worked in the field and lectured in it as well, these dimwits did not bother to discover.

    Either you and I mean something different when we say "degreed geneticist" or she's a disgrace to her field. Geneticists understand homeobox genes and body patterning and understand why DNA coils the way it does.

  • Postmodernism At Work

    04/30/2008 2:30:30 PM PDT · 114 of 287
    ahayes to Hank Kerchief; allmendream
    By popular demand (hi allmendream! :-D ), and in response to the "educated laymen" statement quoted above, I'm copying this from the other thread.
    Just read the article and am, to be generous, not favorably impressed due to tripping over errors every few words.

    DNA does not code for triglycerides.

    Eukaryotes are not just “multi celled organisms”.

    Point mutations are not “almost always deleterious”.

    There are more neutral mutations than beneficial or detrimental.

    Recombination is not usually either neutral or deleterious, instead it is so beneficial that recombination is a major reason sexual reproduction is maintained instead of the more efficient asexual route.

    Female gametes do undergo mutation (both eyebrows raised at the counter-claim).

    New alleles are not required to be dominant.

    We have observed speciation.

    Wow. Ow. The pain. She apparently does not understand enantiomers. The directionality of an alpha helix is controlled by the stereochemistry of the amino acids involved, and that is controlled by biosynthesis. Same with DNA. It *can’t not* twist the way it does. Whee! Grab two complimentary DNA strands, drop them in buffer, heat, cool slowly, and watch them spontaneously match up and coil into a right-handed helix. That happens all on its own because that’s the lowest energy conformation.

    “This does not, of itself, prove the Hox box does in fact control limb structure, since the product of the mutant gene is a shortened form of the required protein, therefore unrecognizable to the body and possibly treated as many other toxic elements are and consigned to the furthest limbs.”

    Pardon me but, ZOMG WTF LOL?? Homeobox genes do in fact control body patterning, the truncated Hox gene would not be “unrecognizable to the body”, merely unable to interact with its substrates, and organisms do not ship toxins out to their extremities (”Hmm, this looks poisonous. I guess instead of letting it go on its way to the liver to be detoxified I’ll ship it to my hand. Who needs hands anyway.”)

    “There is no genetic evidence which demonstrates the final skeletal form is purely and solely genetically driven.”

    No one ever said that the skeleton was “purely and solely genetically driven”. Our skeletons are constantly modified by the stresses we place upon them (which is why astronauts have to worry about osteoporosis as their relatively unstressed bones are broken down by osteoclasts) but genetics!! pretty much is what runs the basic structure.

    “That it is a combination of factors, including the environment which the forms develop in, which directs the final shape, and that the shape found in all animals, (with a series of minor variations) is so, not because of “descent” from a common ancestor, but because in the environment of this world, it cannot take another.”

    She can’t even come up with something original. Evolutionists have studied distributions in morphospace and determined that some body plans are not possible to reach from current body plans or just plain not possible. However, the fossil record clearly demonstrates evolution of body plans.

    All in all, massively error-filled, not the work of an expert. I would say she’s an educated layman, and an excellent example of the saying, “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.”