RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (16) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... >   
  Topic: An Educated Creationist!, Sorf of< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,01:00   

Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 01 2007,22:36)
The ToE demands that proteins can form naturally and spontaneously.

No it doesn't. Modern evolutionary theories have nothing to do with your "tornado in a junkyard" BS, and the current best hypothesis for abiogenesis doesn't either.
 
Quote
Your post does nothing but prove my point.  It takes very skilled biochemists, energy, and equipment to build these molecules, they will not just spring out of a petri dish.

You don't know what you're talking about. It only takes equipment. I suspect that my requested sequence goes right from the Web form into the synthesizer without human interaction. The person running the synthesizer doesn't need to be a "very skilled biochemist" at all.
 
Quote
BTW, how many of Sigm-Aldrich's products are actual functional proteins (not merely peptides or enzymes)?

I'll presume that you just mean the peptide synthesis group, as S-A makes thousands of chemicals.

That being said, your question makes no sense at all, as virtually all enzymes are actual functional proteins. Would you mind rephrasing it in understandable language?
 
Quote
How many of their products use only L-isomers of amino acids?
Virtually all of their peptides do. I suspect that including D-isomers would cost extra. Are you aware that some peptides made by living things contain D isomers?
 
Quote
That's why I put "boiled" in quotation marks.  I'm aiming for the cheap seats so do not make the mistake of assuming I am uninformed when I use rough analogies.

Don't bother aiming for the cheap seats. Arguments by analogy are nearly always vapid, while in the real world, we scientists use analogies merely as explanatory devices.

And I don't have to assume that you are uninformed, because you proved that you were when you claimed that evolutionary theory requires proteins first.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,01:42   

Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 01 2007,22:10)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ July 24 2007,23:45)
Are you going to be another blustering creationist who makes tons of ridiculous claims about evolution that border on 100% scientific illiteracy, then expect us to argue against your ignorance-based delusions?  Geez I hope not, but you sure have started poorly.  Like claiming that the evolution is based solely on Darwin's observations and that there has been no scientific progress or discoveries in the last 150 years.

That's at least twice you people have referred to new and exciting progress in the land of evolutionary fantasy, and have yet to provide squat.  Enlighten me, if that's what you believe you're doing.  Insults just piss me off.

And ya don't wanna piss off Creationists. I hear they can smite people and everything.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,02:17   

Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 01 2007,20:15)
 
Quote (Patrick Caldon @ July 25 2007,09:22)
So observation-based methods can't comment on one-off events like the formation of the moon, or the continents?

Not without significant amounts of guesswork which is often wrong.

For example, in the 1930's two American geologists Charles Schuchert and Bailey Willis developed a theory of an isthmian link (land bridge), which had become submerged beneath the South Atlantic.  It was an east-to-west ridge running between Africa and South America (others were developed later).  This was needed to reject the continental drift theory.


Science historian Naomi Oreskes states, "This explanation was patently ad hoc - there was no evidence of isthmian links other than the paleontological data they were designed to explain (away).  Nevertheless, the idea was widely accepted, and it undercut a major line of evidence of continental drift".

No one today believes there were land bridges between continents.  But they were as sure then as Evolutionists are today about their theory.

Would you care to expand upon this subject? Namely:-

1) What convinced those guys that there had been land bridges (what where they trying to explain etc.)?
2) Who debunked the idea and how?

I think that I know where you are getting your arguments from (or at least the source of your ideas). If I am correct, you have very unreliable allies.

Do you really believe that the Universe is only 6K years old, or is it just the Earth that is so young? Either way, for that to be correct an awfull lot of scientific disciplines have to be way wrong. What would be the basis for believing in a young world?

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,02:31   

Hi Reddot,

On page one I asked these two questions:

Quote
RedDot: Hello and welcome to AtBC, I hope you find your time here productive, informative and fun. I have a question for you, or rather a couple of related questions for you: 1) What if you are wrong about some of the claims and assertions about science etc you have made above, could this (perhaps would this) change your mind about some of the conclusions you have drawn? And 2) Can you be wrong, even about "big" things?


There's a reason I ask these questions. I have discussed things with creationists before and found the conversations to be by and large unsatisfactory due to a gross inability on their part to admit to error and change their minds in the face of evidence. This is by no means always the case, but sadly it has happened. I know it's cheating, but I want to discover which sort of creationist you are before I potentially waste my time actually discussing science with you.

However, that said, as I mentioned up thread, I hope my initial pessimism is unfounded.

Cheers

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,02:51   

Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 01 2007,21:35)
My evidence is beyond Scripture.  It comes from the Earth's magnetic field (decreasing in strength), the orbit of the Moon (increasing in radius), population rates, hydrogen diffusion rates in zircon crystals, and plenty of evidence for a global flood.

Population Rates. As this is a simple metric, please could you tell me what the population was at the following points, or your best guess

1) At the time of the global flood
2) When the pyramids (Giza) were constructed.
3) When Jesus was born

Plenty of evidence for a global flood. What evidence?

Could you point to the worldwide layer in the geological column that are the global flood deposits? Or did this worldwide flood leave no traces?

In addition, was the floodwater salty or fresh?

Simple questions which I predict you won't answer because you know they illustrate the logical holes in your position.

Don't forget you SAID
 
Quote
My evidence is beyond Scripture.


Prove it.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,05:00   

Quote

population rates


Oh, boy.

Have a look at this page, which takes up a YEC argument that human population sizes and doubling times argue for a young earth. Here are some of the conclusions:

 
Quote

Now that we have verified that making inferences as to intermediate population values is an activity engaged in by even those people who forward these arguments, we can proceed to showing what the population argument implies about the human population size at various points in history.  The following follows from Williams set of population parameters: 5,177 years prior to 1925 for an initial population of 2, and a doubling time of 168.3 years.

World Population    Date     Event

             17  2566 BC  Construction of Great Pyramid
          2,729  1332 BC  Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten dies
          5,000  1185 BC  Trojan War
                ~1200 BC  Hebrew exodus, # of males = 603,550 (excluding Levites)
         32,971   776 BC  First Olympic games
         87,507   490 BC  Greek wars with Persia
        133,744   387 BC  Brennus' Sack of Rome
        586,678    28 BC  Augustus' census of Rome (70 to 100 million counted)
        655,683     1 AD  Nice date


While I worked from Williams' example, any similar argument will produce a similar set of counter-factual intermediate values.  What the real values tell us is that human population does not always increase exponentially, and thus current population cannot tell us an initial population time.

Third, the argument ignores what is known about population dynamics from other species.  Various other species can be observed to sometimes reproduce exponentially, but we observe that such populations fluctuate, stabilize, or crash.  In no case do exponentially reproducing populations "take over the world" as SciCre'ists assure us would be the case if evolution were true.  In recent times, human population growth has been exponential, but this does not mean that the human population has been growing exponentially for all its residence time.  Just as the number of E. coli present in your gut will not tell us your birthday or the time of your last use of an antibiotic, so human population size is decoupled from when Homo sapiens arose, or even when a bottleneck may have occurred.

Fourth, final population size is an unreliable indicator of initial population time.  This is really a reiteration of the last point.  There is no general means of inferring a history of population sizes from a current population size.  Attempting to do so coupled with the claim that such attempts disprove evolution shows both ignorance and hubris.

I will add a fifth point, really a corollary to the first point. The SciCre argument is self-contained, and deliberately ignores all other sources of information.  Human history does not record a global flood.  Human history is continuous through the times proposed for a global flood.  Geological evidence shows no sign of a global flood.  Fossil evidence indicates that mankind is far more ancient than SciCre'ists would admit.  None of this evidence goes away or is addressed by the population argument.

In short, the SciCre population argument fails on many different criteria.  Honest creationists should eschew its use.


Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Aug. 02 2007,05:15

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Darth Robo



Posts: 148
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,05:35   

And what the heck has the magnetic field got to do with a 6000 yr old Earth?  As I understand it, the strength is currently decreasing and will soon switch polarity.  Something which has happened many times.

--------------
"Commentary: How would you like to be the wholly-owned servant to an organic meatbag? It's demeaning! If, uh, you weren't one yourself, I mean..."

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,07:06   

A question for RedDot, regarding "increase in genetic information through mutation":

*ahem*

According to the creationists, all humans alive today are descended from 8 people who got off a Really Big Boat. Anyone who understands junior high genetics will know that 8 people have between them a maximum possible of 16 different alleles for each genetic locus (in reality, the 8 people on the Big Boat would have had even FEWER, since some of them were descended from others and thus shared alleles, but for the sake of argument we will give the  creationists every possible benefit of the doubt and assume that they were ALL heterozygous and shared no alleles at all in common). That means, if the creationists are correct that "most mutations are deleterious" and that "no new genetic information can appear through mutation", there can not be any human genetic locus anywhere today with more than 16 alleles, since that is the MAXIMUM that could have gotten off the Big Boat.

But wait ---------- today we find human genetic loci (such as hemoglobin or the HLA complex) that have well over *400* different alleles (indeed some have over *700* different alleles). Hmmmm. Since there could have only been 16 possible on the Big Boat, and since there are over 400 now, and since 400 is more than 16, that means that somehow the GENETIC INFORMATION INCREASED from the time they got off the Big Boat until now.

That raises a few questions ----- (1) if genetic mutations always produce a LOSS in information, like the creationists keep telling us, then how did we go from 16 alleles to over 400 alleles (perhaps in creationist mathematics, 400 is not larger than 16). (2) if these new alleles did not appear through mutations, then how DID they get here.

But wait -- there's more:

Not only, according to creationists, must these new alleles have appeared after the Big Boat, but, according to their, uh, "theory", all of these mutations must have appeared in the space of just *4,000 years* -- the period of time since the Big Flood. That gives a rate of BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS, which add NEW GENETIC INFORMATION, of one every 10 years, or roughly two every generation ------- a much higher rate of beneficial mutation than has ever been recorded anywhere in nature. Nowhere today do we see such a rate anywhere near so high. So not only would I like to know (1) what produced this extraordinarily high rate of non-deleterious mutations, but (2) what stopped it (indeed, what stopped it conveniently right before the very time when we first developed the technological means to study it).

But wait --- we're not done YET . . . . . .

Since less than 1% of observed mutations are beneficial (the vast majority of mutations are indeed deleterious or neutral and have no effect), that means for every beneficial mutation which added a new allele, there should have been roughly 99 others which did not. So to give us roughly 400 beneficial mutations would require somewhere around 40,000 total mutations, a rate of approximately 100 mutations in each locus EVERY YEAR, or 2,000 mutations per locus for EACH GENERATION. Do you know what we call people who experience mutation rates that high? We call them "cancer victims". The only people with mutation rates even remotely comparable were victims of Chernobyl.

But wait, we're STILL not finished . . . . . .

In order for any of those mutations to be passed on to the next generation to produce new alleles, they MUST occur in the germ cells - - sperm or egg. And since any such high rate of mutation in a somatic cell (non-sperm or egg) would have quickly produced a fatal case of cancer, if the creationists are right this mutation rate could ONLY have occurred in the germ cells and could NOT have occurred in any of the somatic cells.

If you can propose a mechanism for me which produces a hugely high rate of mutation in the germ cells while excluding it from any other cells, a Nobel Prize in medicine surely awaits --- such information would be critically valuable to cancer researchers. But alas, no such mechanism exists. The rate of mutations made necessary by creationist "arguments" would certainly have killed all of Noah's children before they even had time to have any kids of their own. In order to produce 400 beneficial alleles in just 4,000 years, humanity would have been beset with cancers at a rate that would have wiped them all out millenia ago.

Explain, please . . . . . ?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,07:09   

Hey RedDot, if biomolecules can't form by themselves through ordinary chemical means, then would you mind explaining to me why we find amino acids inside carbonaceous chondrite meteorites, where no life exists?
Did the Devil put them there to fool us?  Did God put them there to test our faith?

Oh, and regarding "Scripture", I have a few questions for you:  Do you believe that supernatural witches exist?  If so, do you think they should be killed?

And do you think women should be allowed to speak in church?


I want to see just how nutty you really are . . . . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,12:27   

Let's engage in a little hyper-literalism.    
Quote (RedDot @ July 24 2007,22:25)
Unfortunately, creating proteins, RNA, or DNA is absolutely impossible from amino acids

As far as I know, and I am not a chemist so please correct me if I am wrong here, RNA and DNA are not made out of amino acids.

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,12:30   

Quote (lkeithlu @ July 25 2007,10:15)
Ozone is heavier than nitrogen and oxygen. So, what the *** is it doing up there in the ozone layer?

Isn't it made up there by the action of UV light?  This is what I think I remember but I may be remembering incorrectly.

edit: Ok, RedDot answered that.

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,12:34   

Hi Red,

I too would like a workable definition of genetic information and a quick explanation for how it is measured.

Thanks

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,13:36   

Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 01 2007,21:35)
Of the 129 places I can find the mention of the earth in Scripture, none actually mention the shape of the Earth.  Please quote the source of your claim that Scripture states the Earth is flat.

Isaiah 40:22
"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..."

The last time I checked, a circle was a two dimensional object, not a three dimensional one.

Proverbs 8:27
"When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth."

A compass is used to draw circles, not spheres.  That was the King James verse.  Let's read the Revised Standard Version instead.

Proverbs 8:27
"When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep."

Now that is pretty plain, isn't it?

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,14:36   

Hey Reddot, ignore Lenny at your own peril.  I bet you will.  The Flud never happened.

I, on the other hand, would be supremely satisfied if you would just answer the question posed by O.A. and slpage:

What is 'biological information' and how do you quantify it?

toodles!

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,14:39   

Quote (Paul Flocken @ Aug. 02 2007,13:36)
Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 01 2007,21:35)
Of the 129 places I can find the mention of the earth in Scripture, none actually mention the shape of the Earth.  Please quote the source of your claim that Scripture states the Earth is flat.

Isaiah 40:22
"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..."

The last time I checked, a circle was a two dimensional object, not a three dimensional one.

Proverbs 8:27
"When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth."

A compass is used to draw circles, not spheres.  That was the King James verse.  Let's read the Revised Standard Version instead.

Proverbs 8:27
"When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep."

Now that is pretty plain, isn't it?

(Dan 4:10-11 NRSV) Upon my bed this is what I saw; there was a tree at the center of the earth, and its height was great. The tree grew great and strong, its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the ends of the whole earth.

Unless the tree was burning in the earth's core, this suggests a flat Earth, don't you think? Indeed, if it WERE in the core, how did it come up through the ground and reach heaven?

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,14:50   

(Mat 4:8 NRSV) Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor;

(Job 38:13 NIV) that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it?

(Job 11:9 NRSV) Its measure is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea.

Also.

(Gen 1:6-7 NRSV) And God said, "Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."

A dome over an oblate spheroid (oh yes)?

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,15:36   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 02 2007,07:06)
A question for RedDot, regarding "increase in genetic information through mutation":

*ahem*

According...Lenny's standard speil...Explain, please . . . . . ?

Not to disparage you in the least Lenny, but what has always been my favorite challenge of yours is also one of the shortest.

"Which one of the Noah's Ark survivors had the clap?"

or something to that effect.

sincerely,
Paul

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,15:58   

Paul, is that Before or After they got on the boat?

(Cause, uh, I'm guessing that a year on a boat would cause folks to do... stuff)

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,16:44   

Quote (Paul Flocken @ Aug. 02 2007,13:36)
Proverbs 8:27
"When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep."

There is even a really cool painting about the event.  I am sure you have seen it. It is by William Blake.




edit: something that has always struck me about that painting; does it look like god has a tail?

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,17:32   

Quote (Paul Flocken @ Aug. 02 2007,15:36)
Not to disparage you in the least Lenny, but what has always been my favorite challenge of yours is also one of the shortest.

"Which one of the Noah's Ark survivors had the clap?"

or something to that effect.

Well, I was gonna work my way over to that one.

;)


It generally comes right before the "Why do we find oak tree fossils higher in the geological column than velociraptors?  Did the oak trees outrun them towards the high ground?"


Alas, this guy RedDot is boring.  This is the same old crap that ICR was putting out forty goddamn years ago.  Next we'll be hearing all about the woodpecker's tongue, and Bomby the Bombardier Beetle.  (yawn)


YEC died in 1987.  ID is all the rage now.

Um, well . . . . . . . .

RedDot should at least TRY to keep up.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,20:00   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 02 2007,17:32)
Well, I was gonna work my way over to that one.

;)


It generally comes right before the "Why do we find oak tree fossils higher in the geological column than velociraptors?  Did the oak trees outrun them towards the high ground?"


Alas, this guy RedDot is boring.  This is the same old crap that ICR was putting out forty goddamn years ago.  Next we'll be hearing all about the woodpecker's tongue, and Bomby the Bombardier Beetle.  (yawn)


YEC died in 1987.  ID is all the rage now.

Um, well . . . . . . . .

RedDot should at least TRY to keep up.

From experience:

Not everyone that buys into ID is a fundie creationist. Some of us got conned by ignorance. People we trusted lied to us and we believed it. It was quite a shock when I realised people I trusted had lied to me.

I used the plural to refer to me here because I doubt that I was the only one

BTW. I do believe that longtime ID proponennts are fundies.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2007,20:13   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Aug. 02 2007,20:00)
Not everyone that buys into ID is a fundie creationist.

This guy is straight out of Henry Morris and Duane Gish, circa 1982.

He's no IDer (though, like Paul Nelson, he might like to use ID verbiage).  He's a dyed-in-the-wool young-earth creationist.  And a fundie.

No doubt whatsoever about it.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,07:25   

Hey, while we're all here together and awaiting Redot's replies, I have a serious question.  This came up in my reading this past week, what is the chemical mechanism behind dominant and recessive genes.  I know we're talking about preferential expression but what designates that?  I was guessing methylation plays a big role but I don't have the references to back that up.  Can anyone point me in the right direction?

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,07:36   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 03 2007,07:25)
...I have a serious question.  This came up in my reading this past week, what is the chemical mechanism behind dominant and recessive genes.  I know we're talking about preferential expression but what designates that?  I was guessing methylation plays a big role but I don't have the references to back that up.  Can anyone point me in the right direction?

At the risk of derailing this interesting thread, I will briefly respond.

There are MANY mechanisms behind dominance and recessiveness. I am not aware of any involving methylation, however. See here for a paper on the genetic basis for recessive mutations causing white color in flowers, which goes back to some of Mendel's original experiments.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,07:44   

Unfortunately, I couldn't access the full text but I'm not sure that this gets to the heart of my question, hard to tell though without getting into it further than the abstract.  Thanks anyway, I'll get a print copy on Monday and take a look at it in depth.

BTW, I was pretty sure I couldn't do much harm if indeed I did derail the current discussion as it's not really going anywhere but I apologize to any who disagree and I'll try to keep the sidebars to a minimum.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,11:34   

http://evolutionistsnightmare.blogspot.com/

Quote
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Another thought on Evolution as a Religion

Another thought:

While I do advocate keeping religion and science essentially seperate, the worldview (or belief system, if you like) of a scientist will have a dramatic impact on his theories, presumptions, and conclusions. It is unfortunately impossible to completly divorce science from the effects of a worldview. Evolution is part of a worldview which has no place for God.


Kinda weird that thousands of scientists who are christians and who understand and accept evolution failed to notice this.


Quote
the worldview (or belief system, if you like) of a scientist will have a dramatic impact on his theories, presumptions, and conclusions. It is unfortunately impossible to completly divorce science from the effects of a worldview.


Do you suppose the red state, christian, republicans who say things like this know they're repeating the words of French postmodernist philosophers, and feminist philosophers like Sandra Harding? I know their leader Philip Johnson knows, but do you suppose the rank and file do?

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,12:33   

http://evolutionistsnightmare.blogspot.com/2007....-4.html

Quote
Monday, June 18, 2007
I Just Don't Get It...Vol. 4


Separation of ALCU and State

"The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools."

This would be music to Christian's ears, wouldn't it? This statement would put God's Word back where it belongs - in classrooms. The Bible was meant to be taught, handed down from generation to generation. It contains information on history, business ethics, health tips, marriage advice, child rearing advice, battle strategy, and of course, God's plan for mankind's much needed salvation.

There are those, however, who consider Scripture to be, literally, hate speech. When pressed, it is doubtful that they could come up with an actual reason - except God's Commandment against homosexuality. Listen to them long enough though and you'll probably hear them quote scripture, since it is so ingrained into our speech lexicons. Just the other day, a show put out by Jim Henson Productions roughly quoted from Proverbs: "A fool takes his last potato and eats it, a wise man plants it." This is hate speech?

Christians, we must get God's Word back into our daily lives, and into society's daily life as well. We have a country which was founded by Christians, nurtured by Christians, and is being lost by Christians. No other country in the world was ever founded this heavily on Christian principles - and no other country has had the freedom we have had. But that freedom is slipping away faster than most will admit. We need to be like King Josiah, reading the Scrolls which were once lost, right in the middle of the town square. No longer should we stand meekly aside and let groups like the ACLU remove God from our country - especially since they have no legal reason to do so!

Those who cannot tolerate religious freedom just need to be quiet and let us have our God given, and Constitutionally given, right to worship. If they are not content with that, I suggest they find a new home, perhaps one as intolerant as they are...such as China or India.

Christ told us that the world would hate us because it hated Him first - so we are to expect attacks and slander. As the saying goes, "it comes with the territory". However we are giving a country founded ON the Bible away without barely a whisper...ironically in the name of tolerance.

How should you proceed? First, pray and dig into His Word, I would also suggest a fast to go along with this. Second, I suggest reading up on your history, so you can have an answer for the "separation of church and state" crowd. There is a massive amount of information quickly available on-line, such as President Adams' quote regarding our recently won freedom, "the highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." Get really good at this. Perhaps print some off and post them around your work area or school locker. I'd love to see the ACLU attempt to tell us we can't have quotes from our Founding Fathers at work (or school). Thirdly, read our great Constitution...over and over again. Perhaps memorize just the first line of the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Don't just memorize it though, learn what the language meant in that time - it makes a huge difference.

By the way, the initial quote with which I began this blog is currently a mere footnote in history. It has already happened. Congress voted that resolution into effect in 1782.

Ken Pritchett
June 18, 2007


An educated creationist? This post could have come straight from some wacko site like WingNutDaily.

   
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,12:43   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 03 2007,07:44)
Unfortunately, I couldn't access the full text but I'm not sure that this gets to the heart of my question, hard to tell though without getting into it further than the abstract.  Thanks anyway, I'll get a print copy on Monday and take a look at it in depth.

BTW, I was pretty sure I couldn't do much harm if indeed I did derail the current discussion as it's not really going anywhere but I apologize to any who disagree and I'll try to keep the sidebars to a minimum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recessive_gene

mentions many cases are where the dominant is a functioning enzyme, recessive is not.  Both are expressed, however.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,12:44   

not sure that I see anything particularly wacko about this.  Its a point of view, one that resonates heavily in many parts of this country.  I would actually expect to see a statement like this on many church websites and across many denominations.  Just because we're not in agreement with something doesn't make it wacko.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2007,14:42   

Skeptic,

Are you smoking those plants I warned you about? ;-)

It's wacko because it's so totally at odds with observed reality that it takes a singular effort of deliberate ignorance and delusion to maintain. Agreement with me, us, them, whoever is utterly irrelevant. People who disagree with me/us/them/whoever are not wacko because they disagree, nor are they not wacko because lots of other people agree with them. Their wacko status is independant of how many people agree with them or not, or who those people are.

Creationists disagree with the universe, mere human opinion doesn't enter the equation. In fact, according to certain religious ideas, creationists disagree with the revealed creation as set down by god. Not a view I share obviously) but one to note for future reference!

Trying to frame this as a disagreement of pure opinion is (if one is ignorant of the facts) merely a bit uninformed or daft. Trying to do so when not ignorant of the facts is dishonest.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
  451 replies since July 24 2007,18:26 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (16) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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