Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: allmendream

We might be arguing the same thing... hmmm... humorous.

I have no problem with variations of old information providing new useful functions. This supports the viewpoint that organisms were created with the innate ability to adapt. But these changes in no way support the extrapolation that single cell organisms (wherever they came from!) can ADD information to the point that eventually you get a human.
I DO support the idea that God created living systems capable of adaptation, we see that all the time. I mean, where did that stupid looking poodle come from, and whose idea was that?

I’d request clarification of your “population derived from a single organism”. You don’t mean a SINGLE organism... right? It takes two to “tango” - sexual reproduction is required for genetic variances to propagate...


745 posted on 08/20/2008 7:35:07 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 744 | View Replies ]


To: MrB
You don’t mean a SINGLE organism... right? It takes two to “tango” - sexual reproduction is required for genetic variances to propagate...

You really didn't say that, did you? You are presenting yourself as qualified to judge and condemn the work of tens of thousands of biologists, working of a couple of centuries, and you think single celled organisms don't mutate and evolve?

Even worse, you seem not to have considered lateral gene transfer. bacteria sex, if you please.

746 posted on 08/20/2008 8:14:49 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 745 | View Replies ]

To: MrB
Not in an asexual organism it doesn't take two to tango.

You can plate a single organism and watch it divide itself into two then four then sixteen, etc, etc. By the time you have a few hundred thousand organisms all from the same originator you will see quite a bit of genetic variation within the population; even though they started out as the exact same organism with the exact same genome.

Even in the case of sexually reproducing organisms you would have to believe that Adam and Eve contained within themselves all the genetic variability of the entire human race in order to deny that this variability came about due to imperfect replication. In other words one would have to assume that Adam and Eve were simultaneously blue brown green and hazel eyed, lactose tolerant and lactose intolerant, had epithelial folds on their eyes and did not have them, had kinky hair and straight hair, had dark skin and light skin, etc etc.

Seeings as how within two individuals there are only four possible allelic differences at any loci (Adam has trait A and B at that loci and Eve has trait C and D), and far more than four alleles at many loci have been described among human populations; it is simply impossible that the entirety of variability in the human genome could be contained within two human individuals.

750 posted on 08/20/2008 8:33:33 AM PDT by allmendream (If "the New Yorker" makes a joke, and liberals don't get it, is it still funny?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 745 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson