Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (325853)	12/4/2002 9:27:18 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Two single cells doesn't mean there is nothing in those cells, they in fact contained the entire DNA structure of you. If your cells contained a few hundred genes less you would have developed as something else, maybe a mouse.. Hehe. This is quite a load of crap and to prove it we only need try to find documented cases of humans giving birth to mice. It just ain never happened because it is not as simple a matter as you've made it. The development of a human conceptus over nine months has no explanatory power AT ALL where evolution is concerned because the processes allegedly responsible for them are quite different. The conceptus rapidly develops not because of descent with modification. It does so because of an already developed set of instructions that guides the process. Evolution is a process of descent with modification whereby natural pressures are alleged to have slowly developed the actual instructions and methods responsible for the conceptus's rapid development over nine months. These are two entirely different things and that you've confused them proves you don't be knowin' squat man. Evolutionists believe that the genome mutated or changed and in some cases became increasingly more complex over a long period of time...a number of things could have caused those changes including random combinations and even radiation.... Uh yeah! This is called blind faith. Bear in mind that evolutionists had such theories long before the genome was mapped or it's structure known. I recognize this all shakes your religious thoughts but I don't have any delusions about it changing your mind... I'm not even relying upon religion here and still are showing you don't be knowing squat. So when you start attacking my religion, please let me know. Go to the head of the class, yes they do.... But you say they arrive at those early stages by different means...What are you trying to say....what different means..? I am saying what you should already know, "Mr. Scientist." When an ovuum is fertilized it undergoes patterned divisions characteristic of its class, fish patterns are different from mammalian patterns and yet they both end up at some point with embryos that are virtually identical. So for your little embryo crap to gain significance, the earliest processes responsible for the similarities must also show similarity. Biological continuity should naturally show developmental continuity. But it don't. Not only does continuity not show up at the earliest stages of development, it don't even show up at the latter stages. Check out fish and human development and we see some fundamental differences in the patterns of fin/limb bone and cartilage development between the two classes that should be quite similar were common ancestry true. You may dismiss it all as a matter of adaptation, but without a proven mechanism for the changes you just got to accept the mess on blind faith. "Adaptation" is just another word for "magic." True to an extent but it sometimes takes years for the studies to be completed before the scientific community will agree....notice I said for the studies to be completed, not for the votes to be counted. The studies are complete and the scientists are being shouted down and disparaged. This is a dang vote, whatever you say. Some will never accept the result of one find but there are no serious scientists who reject all of the archealogical evidence...... The problem is, modern science is a religion. So it will be hard to find "serious" scientists who reject all of the archeological evidence or even who are willing to seriously challenge the religion, because the minute they seriously challenge the religious edifice of evolution, they are deemed "not serious" by the priests and acolytes. Enjoy your bible study.....you are helping advance man's progress on this planet.... Indeed, for the fear of God is the beginning of true wisdom.