bi polar, bi polar disorders, bi polar disorder, manic depression…

bi polar, bi polar disorders, bi polar disorder, manic depression…

bi polar, bi polar disorders, bi polar disorder, manic depression…

bi polar, bi polar disorder, bi polar dis orders, manic depression…

First time through I thought that as well, but look over it again, as it is completely missing the point.

Sal did not quote the conclusion of the text because it was not relevant to his argument, if you look at what is bolded, you will realize that Sal was using the reluctant admissions in MacCallum’s article to demonstrate that Doctors were dissing Darwinism. Not that MacCallum was doing it.

drx:

Anyone can read can see that you aren’t simply misunderstanding it a lttle, you are representing it as saying the opposite of what the article says by omitting statements that would expose your 180 degree misrepresentation. This is disgraceful. You should remove this post or correct it.

Consider the fictional statement:

“Phlgiston is essential for chemistry. It’s dissappointment it’s not being taught in chemistry as it’s the most central theory of chemistry”

Would such a statement, in your mind, be embarrasing admission of phlogiston’s irrelevance to chemistry. You fail to see the there is a comparable situation with MacCallum’s statement.

The very existence of her editorial refutes the point she was arguing for. It was an unwitting admission of Darwinism’s irrelevance.

borne writes with genius:

I’m afraid you did not understand in the least what Salvador’s post here is about.

Perhaps you’re Darwinist prejudice is blinding your discernment of content and purpose?

You sadly mistake drawing logical conclusions from a pro Darwinist article for mere quote-mining. Salvador is not “falsely interpreting” but drawing logical conclusions from the articles implications – indeed from it’s very existence.

It is clear that Salvador uses MacCallum’s article to demonstrate exactly what the article implies;(why do Darwinists always fail to see logical implications?) i.e. Darwinism is useless in medicine.

Indeed borne, you understood what my post was about. Compare that to Ed Brayton’s reading. Brayton fails to see the subtlety in what I wrote, you were able to correctly understand what I said.

Sal Cordova’s Rank Dishonesty

“In these hypothetical cases will the said sequences still be inherited? If no, then the probability of inheritance is very small, because it is very unlikely the said sequences were inserted into the sperm and egg at the same loci.”

Actually, if the said sequences are inserted at different chromosonal loci in the sperm and the egg, then we should expect to see half the descendants having the “egg” DNA pattern, and half the descendants having the “sperm” DNA pattern. If this half-half pattern are not observed in living primates, then it is unlikely that retroviral insertion had taken place.

Even then, before reproduction even took place, cancer would have taken place to wreck havoc.

At least a dozen of researchers have discovered that introns have regulatory roles – failure of which will cause cancer.

http://www.psrast.org/junkdna.htm

It remains to be proved whether some or all the introns (and other junk DNA) are functional. I am betting that most introns are functional.

I see the following possible explanations for the DNA sequences seemed to be “inserted” by retroviruses:

1. the said sequences are extracted from a host genome into the virus rather than inserted into it by the virus;

2. the said sequences are neither inserted into nor extracted out of host genomes. Rather, some viruses happen to have the same sequences as their hosts.

3. the said sequences were inserted by viruses into particular loci for a reason – maybe it is at these loci that the viruses will survive and replicate in the host because of “software compatibility”

By the way, if a virus inserted the said sequences, am I right that the viruses have to replicate into every contiguous cell until the said sequences are also inserted into the germ cells (sperms AND eggs) in order for them to be inherited? What if the sperm contain the said sequences but not the egg, and vice versa, or both sperm and egg contain the said sequences at different loci? In these hypothetical cases will the said sequences still be inherited? If no, then the probability of inheritance is very small, because it is very unlikely the said sequences were inserted into the sperm and egg at the same loci.

Generally speaking, evolution has to overcome the “sexual compatibility” barrier – both male and female must co-evolve at the same time and same place in a sexually compatible manner.