AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: VoxRat

form_srcid: VoxRat

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

Your IP address is


form_srcid: VoxRat

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'VoxRat%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC


DB_result: Resource id #6

Date: 2003/01/22 17:01:31, Link
Author: VoxRat
Doing a little idle bottom-feeding, I ran across this gem from Jonathan Wells' website:

"Dr. Wells's work in developmental biology poses a serious challenge to the neo-Darwinian idea that random mutations can create new body plans and organisms. "

Anyone know of any conceivable basis for this rather bold claim?

:0 VR

Date: 2003/02/06 08:36:50, Link
Author: VoxRat
Here's an OpEd piece from Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman on the latest creationist legal gambit:

Date: 2003/02/06 15:31:52, Link
Author: VoxRat
Here's one of my favorite examples:

Nature 2000 Feb 17;403(6771):785-9

Syncytin is a captive retroviral envelope protein involved in human placental morphogenesis.

Mi S, Lee X, Li X, Veldman GM, Finnerty H, Racie L, LaVallie E, Tang XY, Edouard P, Howes S, Keith JC Jr, McCoy JM.


Many mammalian viruses have acquired genes from their hosts during their evolution. The rationale for these acquisitions is usually quite clear: the captured genes are subverted to provide a selective advantage to the virus. Here we describe the opposite situation, where a viral gene has been sequestered to serve an important function in the physiology of a mammalian host. This gene, encoding a protein that we have called syncytin, is the envelope gene of a recently identified human endogenous defective retrovirus, HERV-W. We find that the major sites of syncytin expression are placental syncytiotrophoblasts, multinucleated cells that originate from fetal trophoblasts. We show that expression of recombinant syncytin in a wide variety of cell types induces the formation of giant syncytia, and that fusion of a human trophoblastic cell line expressing endogenous syncytin can be inhibited by an anti-syncytin antiserum. Our data indicate that syncytin may mediate placental cytotrophoblast fusion in vivo, and thus may be important in human placental morphogenesis

Date: 2003/02/19 15:32:30, Link
Author: VoxRat
Yet, one biologist who did not sign the statement — Stephen C. Lawler — said the "Steves" on this list are bowing to peer pressure.

"Over the years, you have a choice to make as a scientist — if you're going to fess up to reality, or if your going to desire to hold on to your career, your lifestyle, etcetera," Lawler said.

Should we expect to see the careers of non-signing Steves go down in flames? :0

Date: 2003/02/21 13:31:11, Link
Author: VoxRat
Have any of you YEC trackers followed this guy, Marshall Hall? :0  Check out his website I especially like this pearl of wisdom:
Qualified and able Creationist/Geocentrists around the world are speaking out on the two facts that ICR (and AIG) are steadfastly resisting, viz., The Bible teaches a moving sun, not a moving earth; &: Both the heliocentricity and the geocentricity models explain all the phenomena. Thus, support of heliocentricity is a philosophical, not a scientific, choice, & not fit for Biblical Creationists.
Point that out when our more urbane pseudointellectual anti-intellectual friends(e.g. Discovery Institute) use the same "philosophical bias" gambit.

Date: 2005/04/02 18:45:58, Link
Author: VoxRat
Would evidence for common descent look the same as separate creation by a common designer?

I don't think so. There might be commonalities of "style" from a common designer, but why would these quantitatively (as in DNA homology, for instance) track the geneologies of the creatures?  If the same designer is responsible for starfish, chimps and humans, what - in the common designer argument - predicts any closer DNA relationship between any two of them compared with the third?

Date: 2005/04/17 20:22:02, Link
Author: VoxRat
I'll check back in when I've read the article. Meanwhile, I will also want to know how this can be explained by invoking intelligent input.