<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>Changing American’s distrust of evolution</title>
		<description>Discuss Changing American’s distrust of evolution</description>
		<link>http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/191-191/1246-changing-americans-distrust-of-evolution</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 10:36:01 -0800</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://readersupportednews.org/component/jcomments/feed/com_content/1246" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>Guest says:</title>
			<link>http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/191-191/1246-changing-americans-distrust-of-evolution#comment-11342</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Nathan, Thanks for your response. It saddens me, though, that in your argument you had to suggest I am an "unfortunate w/o the advanced mutation...and will die out. I've seen this reaction before. Why are evolutionists defensive? You said I was mistaken but you didn't say about what. You agreed DNA's a code. Are you also agreeing it's constructed intelligently? And can't be read w/o being translated? Do you see that means a code cannot come about randomly? Because then there's not the necessary intelligence to construct it as well as it's translator. And if you're not agreeing, why do you call it a code? For that is what a code is. You'd have to say it's something other than a code. What would that be? You suggest I can't fathom DNA's developmental process but others can. Do you honestly think I don't know what evolutionists say? And I didn't refer to a process, but to DNA's coming into existence, a puzzle, the lack of a solution to which, undermines evolution. Please read more of your critics.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Guest</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jun 2010 15:46:09 -0800</pubDate>
			<guid>http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/191-191/1246-changing-americans-distrust-of-evolution#comment-11342</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Guest says:</title>
			<link>http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/191-191/1246-changing-americans-distrust-of-evolution#comment-10960</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Rob Carr: You are mistaken. DNA is indeed a code of four repeated protiens in myriad patterns. RNA is the messenger relaying what DNA expresses to appropriate points. DNA has developed in a stepwise manner over millenia one mutation at a time. Some mutations didn't work causing the organism to die without reporducing. Some mutations luckily fit some function making the organism more fit to survive & reproduce. It is immaterial whether you can fathom the developmental process of DNA. Those who do understand recongnize its significance. Those who recognize its significance benefit from evolutionary mutations with which, by virtue of their ability to understand complex concepts, are better suited to understand still further, more complex concepts in a snow balling effect to better enable them to survive, thrive & reproduce in a confusing intellectual environment. Unfortunates w/o the advanced mutation will, over time, die out: Survival of the fittest. Available in a family near you.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Guest</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 15 Jun 2010 14:30:59 -0800</pubDate>
			<guid>http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/191-191/1246-changing-americans-distrust-of-evolution#comment-10960</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Guest says:</title>
			<link>http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/191-191/1246-changing-americans-distrust-of-evolution#comment-9963</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Do people who believe in evolution know enough about DNA, or understand what it is? Apparently no one can answer the problem for evolution that DNA is a code, and codes do not, and cannot, occur as a result of nature. Patterns can, but patterns are not codes. A code must be constructed intelligently-- that is simply the definition of a code. Also, a decoder, RNA, etc., must be constructed and provided. Also, DNA comes from RNA, and RNA from DNA. So there's no way for them to come into existence. At least not according to evolution. And especially not, since they comprise intelligent languages, i.e., codes. Anyone still interested in evolution should watch a computer animation of DNA and RNA in action and try to say to themselves, That came about without the help of intelligence or a creator. It should make you laugh.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Guest</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jun 2010 12:32:06 -0800</pubDate>
			<guid>http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/191-191/1246-changing-americans-distrust-of-evolution#comment-9963</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>ProfPeteB says:</title>
			<link>http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/191-191/1246-changing-americans-distrust-of-evolution#comment-4671</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I received a Ford Foundation Fellowship in Anthropology in 1973-Master's in 1974. The Fellowship was bound to my assertion that when Mitochondrial DNA testing was available, Homo-sapiens-sa piens would not display that of either Predecessor. The Berkeley 1987 computer study supported my thesis, and recently the physical study of Homo sapiens sapiens MtDNA showed NO signs of inheritance from either of our Predecessors. Evolution, my field is, THEORETICAL. There is nothing to support or believe in, because it is science, but is also like gambling in a way, but Anthropology is not a contest between Conservatives and Liberals. Science is not a lottery, it is group of highly educated men and women trying to do a job and that job is neither political, religious, nor irreligious. We don't care what the Democrats or Republicans, Liberals or Conservatives think about it. Being for or against Theories is silly. Theories change all the time, and we don't care what others think about what we find.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>ProfPeteB</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 06 Apr 2010 17:34:14 -0800</pubDate>
			<guid>http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/191-191/1246-changing-americans-distrust-of-evolution#comment-4671</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>rabil says:</title>
			<link>http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/191-191/1246-changing-americans-distrust-of-evolution#comment-4385</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Science provides a method for getting to the truth and tends to produce consensus. Religion tends to produce eternal conflict with no possibility of resolution. The proof of science is that it works. Thousands of years of religion have produced what exactly? It took a few hundred years of science to be able to go to the moon, explain the origins of life, determine how heredity works, and on and on. There is a world of difference in believing based on evidence versus believing based on blind, irrational faith.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>rabil</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 03 Apr 2010 07:07:54 -0800</pubDate>
			<guid>http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/191-191/1246-changing-americans-distrust-of-evolution#comment-4385</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Guest says:</title>
			<link>http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/191-191/1246-changing-americans-distrust-of-evolution#comment-3340</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I absolutely accept the theory of evolution and see no conflict with religion. In fact, I often refer to "the miracle of evolution" as it lays out the complexities of life that, in my mind, supports the existence of a supreme being. I do not believe, however, it is correct to say that man evolved from apes; but rather, that man and apes have common ancestors just as human cousins do.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Guest</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 23 Mar 2010 13:46:05 -0800</pubDate>
			<guid>http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/191-191/1246-changing-americans-distrust-of-evolution#comment-3340</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
