Customer Discussions > Science forum

Genome sequencing leaves Creationists unable to respond


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 101-125 of 170 posts in this discussion
Posted on Oct 18, 2012 9:39:51 AM PDT
Sceptic says:
Should you be clustering those names together?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 18, 2012 10:15:28 AM PDT
Sceptic says:
It is hard to know exactly when it became acceptable for U.S. politicians to be anti-science. For some two centuries science was a pre-eminent force in American politics, and scientific innovation has been the leading driver of U.S. economic growth since World War II. Kids in the 1960s gathered in school cafeterias to watch moon launches and landings on televisions wheeled in on carts. Breakthroughs in the 1970s and 1980s sparked the computer revolution and a new information economy. Advances in biology, based on evolutionary theory, created the biotech industry. New research in genetics is poised to transform the understanding of disease and the practice of medicine, agriculture and other fields.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 18, 2012 10:23:01 AM PDT
It was certainly flourishing at the time William Jennings Bryan argued against the teaching of evolution in the famous "monkey trial" in Tennessee in 1925.

Posted on Oct 18, 2012 12:44:33 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 18, 2012 12:45:12 PM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
Science has been garnering hate from certain extremist religious types for centuries... in recent decades, it's also earned the wrath of corporate/industrial interests, who of course have more money to throw around and are in a better position to directly buy political influence rather than just holding rallies and voting against science.

These two forces have teamed up under the umbrella of the modern Republican Party and have been wreaking considerable havoc on American society with their efforts.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 18, 2012 8:35:29 PM PDT
The thing is, MFEH, you're still going to die, no matter how many times you do jump from squat with 300 lb.

A normal person, holding down a real career with all the job obligations, could not possibly find the time to exercise for more than about an hour a day. That's what I shoot for (and do manage, on most days). Perhaps I'll die of heart disease and diabetes because I'm not in the gym 8 hours at day. However, I'd die sooner of starvation if I didn't reserve some time to earn a salary.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 18, 2012 10:17:05 PM PDT
Re Bubba, 10-17 5:03 AM: "We now have proof that creationists are simply unable to respond coherently when presented with the evidence." Surely, this is not news to you...

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 18, 2012 10:18:36 PM PDT
Re Eric M. O'Neill, 10-17 5:43 AM: "You appear to be arguing with a straw man." He does it frequently.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 18, 2012 10:21:21 PM PDT
Re N. Hunt, 10-17 12:43 PM: "he was arguing that Solar neutrinos were heating up the Earth's core..." A contention that was utterly ridiculous. Of course, this was hardly a unique occurrence...

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 18, 2012 10:34:01 PM PDT
Re Sceptic, 10-18 10:15 AM: "It is hard to know exactly when it became acceptable for U.S. politicians to be anti-science." This may be overstating the case. The whiz-bang science, such as NASA stuff, gets lots of favorable attention, and electronics isn't far behind. The murkiness seems to be confined to anything which impinges on religious views -- such as evolution. Part of this is due, I think, to inadequate teaching of science in the public schools, especially high school, and particularly in biology. My high school biology class was taught by an excellent teacher -- but he did not get into the details of the scientific method and how we determine the correctness of theses. (A serious omission.) If I were teaching biology, I would make it clear from the outset that it was being taught within the framework of evolution -- and that a goodly part of the final grade would depend on the student being able to reconstruct the proof that the ToE is correct.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 19, 2012 2:29:02 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 19, 2012 2:31:02 AM PDT
DRM says:
If I were teaching biology, I would make it clear from the outset that it was being taught within the framework of evolution -- and that a goodly part of the final grade would depend on the student being able to reconstruct the proof that the ToE is correct.
----------------
Some High School Science Teachers with Advanced Science Degrees have been prohibited from providing their students Valid Contrary Evidence and facts regarding Evolution. Contrary facts and evidence from Reputable Scientists who have a Ph.D.

"This has already been established. A decision has been made. We will NOT allow any CONTRARY views."

"The Sun DOES rotate around the Earth, this is KNOWN science, and we will NOT tolerate even the MENTION of any other possibility."

Yeah, THAT'S the ticket....

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 19, 2012 4:49:27 AM PDT
Re DRM, above: "have been prohibited from providing their students Valid Contrary Evidence and facts regarding Evolution." There aren't any. Not a single one.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 19, 2012 9:51:57 AM PDT
Sceptic says:
What about witchcraft versus medicine; the stork theory of childbirth and the "science" of astrology?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 19, 2012 11:44:41 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 19, 2012 11:46:37 AM PDT
RR says:
Christine,
"The thing is, MFEH, you're still going to die, "

As is obvious from his posts, he experienced frontal lobe death several years ago...

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 19, 2012 12:37:43 PM PDT
Re RR, above: "he experienced frontal lobe death several years ago... " Is this how one turns into a word salad generator?
:-)

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 19, 2012 12:45:00 PM PDT
RR says:
Robert,
"Is this how one turns into a word salad generator?"

It must be! The Moh reptilian squat-thrust brain randomly generates words. Nobel for you sir!

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 19, 2012 2:33:33 PM PDT
Re RR, above: " Nobel for you sir!" In literature, maybe; I don't think that any of this qualifies as science. :-)

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 19, 2012 2:52:56 PM PDT
Christine M. Janis wrote:

"The thing is, MFEH, you're still going to die, no matter how many times you do jump from squat with 300 lb.

A normal person, holding down a real career with all the job obligations, could not possibly find the time to exercise for more than about an hour a day. That's what I shoot for (and do manage, on most days). Perhaps I'll die of heart disease and diabetes because I'm not in the gym 8 hours at day. However, I'd die sooner of starvation if I didn't reserve some time to earn a salary. "
=========================

I cannot argue with your logic when it makes sense.

I digress.

Mohamed F. El-Hewie

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2012 1:17:44 PM PST
Doctor says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2012 1:23:16 PM PST
Doctor says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2012 1:52:16 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 9, 2012 1:53:00 PM PST
Sceptic wrote: "This video proves our common ancestry."
Doctor wrote: "No, it could be more likely common design."
=====================================

A deaf and mute in real action.

Because, if we have common ancestry or Intelligent Design, we have too little to gain from the past.

The Designer made the universe so vast that we cannot uncover all its secretes.

Our cousins from our common ancestries are too impoverished, bordering extinction, to the extent we gain too little from their company.

Mohamed F. El-Hewie

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2012 6:33:16 PM PST
RR says:
Doctor,
"Functional morphological and genetic similarities between humans and apes could be the result of common design just as much as common descent."

Yeah, and the ERVs we share. Tell me why the designer decided to stick all those viruses into the same locations for both humans and apes?

Common design fails to address the total body of evidence. It is completely ad hoc.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2012 1:36:10 AM PST
Sceptic says:
The designer is also incompetent and psychopathic!

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 12, 2012 8:10:11 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 12, 2012 8:17:10 AM PST
"However, the nucleotide difference between the two species is surprisingly small. The early genome comparison by DNA hybridization techniques suggested a nucleotide difference of 1-2%. ---- However, if one looks at proteins, which are mainly responsible for phenotypic differences,"

And your point is? Anyway, those proteins are different by an amino acid or two (as one might expect by random drift in two different directions over the past 8 million years), not completely different.

Just don't bother to read the actual paper (which, of course, you don't cite -- I wonder why that is), just cherry-pick sciency-sounding tidbits that seem to support your point.

For people interested in actual scientific facts, the citation is

Gene
Volume 346, 14 February 2005, Pages 215-219

Here they show: "Only 25 out of the 127 chimpanzeeproteins (20%) were identical to their human orthologs (see Table 2 for the list of these proteins). This is approximately in accordance with a random distribution of the 0.6% nonsynonymous substitutions across proteins of average length of 330 amino acids "

Right -- the substitutions accounted for a change in around 0.6% of the amino acids in the proteins, -- in fact very little difference as they end up concluding:

"Even the 80% protein differences appear to be too small to explain the phenotypic differences. It seems that the phenotypic differences are controlled by a small proportion of genes, either by regulatory genes or by major effect genes."

We know that humans and chimps look different, so clearly they have some genetic differences. This paper shows that the very small amount of amino acid substitutions in the subset of proteins examined by these researches is not enough to account for those difference

Or was the good doctor trying to persuade people that there is only an overall 20% similarity in the genes between humans and chimps?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 12, 2012 8:21:21 AM PST
John McClain says:
"No, it could be more likely common design."

Designers won't typically put a virus in something they are making. Thanks for playing.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 15, 2012 4:39:20 PM PST
Doctor says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


ARRAY(0x9e37f570)
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  27
Total posts:  170
Initial post:  Oct 14, 2012
Latest post:  Jan 3, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions