RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (23) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: AF Dave Has More Questions About Apes, Creation/Evolution Debate< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Chris Hyland

Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,14:21   

Find out firsthand why Darwinists are apparently losing the PR game in the USA.
I imagine it could have something to do with religion. And the fact that scientists don't tend to hire PR firms.

ToE advocates are becoming frustrated
Nope. Well none of the ones I know.

The Ship of Darwin has hit an iceberg
Nope, every paper I read answers another question.

My contention is that we (genetic researchers) know SO LITTLE about any genomes, that we cannot assert that this gene or that gene is broken.
We can assert that it does not produce the protein to make vitamin C.

Please tell me that you guys ARE aware of all the new information coming in about "junk DNA"
Ive read papers from the early eighties that talk about functional non-coding DNA and RNA. The term was origionally meant to mean long repetetive stretches of DNA. It has been a long time if at all since people thought only protein coding regions had function.

You guys are the biology experts ... you should know this.
Maybe you can think about some of this tonight and redeem your arguments tomorrow.
Remember, you guys did good just last week on the chromo thing ... I know you guys can give me some substance on this thread as well.
Many people on theis forum have been very patient with you, but you have shown your self to be willfully ignorant of the subjects you are trying to argue about. If you really want to have a decent conversation with scientists being undeservedly smug and patronising isn't the correct way to go about it.

The reason we are certain that a chromosome fusion occured is becuase we see the evidence that the sequences appear to match, and we know that such chromosome rearrangements commonly occur. Think about what you have learned about the vitamin C gene and you will see that we have applied the same reasoning. On the other hand, if you claim common design is a better hypothesis, you need only explain why.

ps Once again could you confirm or deny that you don't think we can infer any of this stuff as we didn't see it happen.

  685 replies since May 08 2006,03:55 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (23) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]