5 Problems with Palin

[Vene]

Yes... many variation of finch are likely related. They likely come from a common ancestor... a finch. Or at least some form of bird. But there has NEVER been ANY evidence for a finch producing a non-bird. Or any animal being bred into any other sort of animal through any number of generations. We know we can breed dogs. That's fine. Chahuahuas evolved from wolves. Perfectly sound logic. There is no evidence at all that chahuahuas evolved from the same ancestor as a potato.

Actually there is, protein analysis. Living things have the protein cytochrome c whether they are plant, animal, or bacterium. But, it is different in each. This wouldn't be a big deal, except that proteins are formed directly from DNA, and as mutations accumulate it modifies proteins. It is possible to look at the proteins and trace back ancestry. Below is the amino acid sequence for cytochrome c for various organisms (link):

From this information it is possible to determine how related any two organisms are. It relies on the exact same logic that is used in paternity suits. Unless you think paternity testing in invalid, then there is no reason to think this is invalid.

Hey, look at that, plants and animals have a common ancestor. And you said there was no evidence. Learn some biology before you spout off such inanities.

It's not even like animal and plant cells are that different, especially compared to bacteria (link).

Notice how animals and plants share the nucleus, mitochondria, golgi complex, endoplasmic reticulum, chromosomes, and some organelles that aren't listed. There is no reason for these to be shared. Of those I listed only chromosomes are shared with bacteria, and even those are different. Plant and animal chromosome look alike, I bet you wouldn't be able to tell them apart on a karyotype, but bacteria chromosomes are circular.

 

[Corey]

So you have a problem with FactCheck.org? Take it up with them. The fact remains that Palin is not on record supporting teaching creationism and evolution side by side in science class. She did not push creation science as Governor , nor does she advocate for it to be part of the curriculum.

Actually, I'm referring to you. You ignored the quote I listed above. I know for a fact that you couldn't have missed it because what you quoted was below what I quoted.

That fact is that Palin is on record supporting teaching the two together and then apparently the next day (an aided) decided that her declared support for something blatantly illegal was a bad idea, so she issued a "clarification."

 

[soblessed53]

I once read or heard that even the intention to mislead/deceive is a lie,and Sarah Palin is also on record supporting "The Bridge To Nowhere",yet she continually says publicly now that she said "thanks but no thanks"!

I wouldn't have a problem with her saying that she changed her mind,we all do that,often. My problem is with her refusal to even admit that she ever was in support of The Bridge To Nowhere,instead she is deceptive,in trying to pretend she NEVER was,by deliberately lying by omission of stating her previous support.

Yeah, some change there would be with her and McCain!