"Mmmm, jean desserts."
Posted on 04/13/2005 6:20:23 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
That sounds very reasonable. I hope that you will avail yourself the opportunity to remind some of the evos on this board of that when they become to strident and dogmatic. It seems from behind my keyboard that they write like evolution is a proven fact and to believe otherwise makes you "demon-possessed". If you are a new poster on this board you may not believe that, but that is the term they use to people who fail to interpret the evidence the way they think we should.
In this instance for example, if there was a fusion, and if the fusion point has indeed been found, it only shows where the "cut and paste" was, not whether an ID or blind evolution performed the operation!
Considering how little we actually know about the specific proteins coded by DNA in a cell, I don't think it's particularly wise to go around unilaterally declaring all these gene deserts.
I wouldn't be surprised to find that these deserts, much like the tonsils and appendix, aren't as vestigial and unused as biologists currently maintain they are.
Interestingly enough, an evolutionary paradigm led to the wrong conclusions about the appendix and tonsils being vestigial.
PS- even those of us who believe in Revelation as a source for truth believe that our interpretations of those revelations must be examined.
So where are all the 500 million year old apes? If there's no relationship between the apes' genes, why do they exist at roughly the same time in history?
Where would you propose they came from?
"...human chromosome 2 was produced as the result of the fusion of two mid-sized ape chromosomes and a Seattle group located the fusion site in 2002. "
Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle. Where is WJB when you need him?
(could this fusion have created this "gene desert"?)
If we evolved from apes, what did apes evolve from? I've never had that question answered.
The absence of Open Reading Frames is good evidence for a "desert".
Gene sequencing technology has found many genes that were previously unknown by examining for open reading frames. This technology also allows us to sequence proteins, which was a real arduous task in the old days (sigh... I guess I am getting to the point where I belong with the dinosaurs).
Nephew, more likely.
could this fusion have created this "gene desert"?
The gene desert is proof of the Fall. And the Flood. And design. And Darwin's degeneracy.
</creationism mode>
"Mmmm, jean desserts."
It was most recently the medical industry, but now has become incorporated into the State as the Medical Institute. As soon as somebody damanded the right to medical care the game was over.
tree shrews -> lemurs -> tarsiers -> apes* -> humans
* The earliest apes differentiated from ancestral haplorhines during the early Miocene Epoch, about 18-22 million years ago.
PS. Keep in mind that the modern critters listed above are just approximations of the ancestral creatures, as the extant species have also continued to evolve, though with lesser divergence. Note that monkeys diverged down their own path from tarsiers, and so apes did not evolve from monkeys, contrary to popular cliché.
Rollin' Rollin' Rollin'
Keep the Luddites rollin'
Rawhide
Ya can't understand 'em
Just rope, tie and brand 'em
Soon they'll be at the end of their line.
.
.
.
rawhide
(sorry Clint)
OK. What process would create apes, then a couple millions of years later, humans with similar genes?
The problem with convergence theory in this sense is that these features that are deemed emblematic of common ancestry are to a degree arbitrary. There is no reason for them to have emerged independently with precisely this arrangement (or even close to it, in the traits discussed above).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.