Posted on 07/11/2002 9:44:50 AM PDT by ZGuy
Which of course is one of the big problems which evolution has - that not just one individual, but a whole large number of individuals have to evolve together and to do so gradually for evolution to be true.
Eventually evolutionists stick their feet in their mouths with all their double-talk.
You are putting your foot deeper and deeper in your mouth with your double-talk. Maybe with the next post you will be able to get it out the other end! Of course the same thing is an argument against evolution itself - the incompatibility of partners. But of course evolutionists have an excuse for that one - their deux ex machina 'natural selection' will perform the miracle of keeping the whole species evolving at an even rate so that they will always be able to mate. Who says evolutionists do not believe in miracles!
Macroevolution is evolution at the level of species or above. Novel innovation in bodyplan is related to this.
All that the study showed was that two mutations in already existing DNA allowed the organism to use lactose as a nutrient. Now changing the code of two DNA bases is not adding information. For some hundred posts you have been denying the simplest thing that -2 + 2 = 0. Now this is very simple math, I think even first graders can grasp it. However, you call me names trying to deny it! All that you are showing is to what desperate amounts of sophistry you and your fellow evolutionists go through in order to try to manufacture evidence for your theory where none is to be found.
So long as the evidence keeps favoring the theory, all the above is fine. However, when evidence, disproves the theory, then the theory is thrown in the garbage can. The evidence of science the last 150 years disproves evolution: mendellian genetics, DNA and the interrelatedness of the functions of the organism all disprove evolution. Evolutionists have no evidence to disprove these advances or to talk their way out of the problems they create. Evolution has been disproven, and only the professional evolutionists and the 'science reporters' in the media believe it (or rather they probably do not believe it either because they know exactly what lies they have to tell to cover up the problems of evolution).
Sort of, as I understand it 'macro' evolution to the evolutionist community is about the evolution from less complex to more complex organisms.
And there is no reason that this couldn't be selected for, I should think, given the proper (highly unlikely) environmental 'inputs'.
'Speciation' is typically considered part of 'micro' evolution by the evos. And yet the Creos have specifically seperated this out.
They have created an arbitrary line. And that line is the weakest point of their argument.
They believe in evolution up to a point. A made-up point.
I think I've seen some amazing responses here confronting them with that point.
What does the word, 'evidence' mean to you?
What place does 'evidence' have in your mind? Is 'evidence' important? What does evidence look like?
A better term than "creationist" would be evolution skeptic. Of course since I believe in God you could fairly call me a creationist. Although I think you said you believe in God, also :-)
Give it up Gore3000. After the mutations, the "information" to utilize lactose was generated. End of story.
Besides, didnt you say mutations were ALWAYS destructive?
You seem intent on re-arguing the same garbage you lost on in another thread. Sorry I will not waste my time rearguing the same points. Seems the evolutionists try to win their arguments by just wearing out the opposition by constantly repeating the same thing over and over until people get tired and leave. Here is the answer to all your excuses on this subject. Have fun seeing them again:
To: RightWingNilla
The copy of the gene will have all of the necessary information as the first one does. You still haven't gotten past this.
We went through this nonsense argument already. I showed you a case where one segment of DNA controlled the operation of 3 different genes. So no, all the controlling code is not contigious and your argument is totally false. Further since 95% of the genome is non-coding you would have to copy tons of stuff which are not directly involved in protein production. In addition to which, how does this magical 'duplication' know where to start and end the duplication - right between adjacent genes, right in the middle, at the end of the previous gene, at the beginning of the next gene, at some magical point where it determines the code necessary is located? You are positing such absurdity from a random event?
2201 posted on 7/2/02 10:06 PM Pacific by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2195 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]To: RightWingNilla
This had nothing to do with what I asked you!!!
You obviously have a reading problem. post#2259 shows exactly the proof why a duplicate gene will not be expressed. You said you had posted proof to the contrary. I asked for a post#, you attack instead of giving it. I gave my proof, if you don't like it, if you do not understand it, that is not my problem. You have not given one iota of proof for your assertion and continue to make excuses for not giving it. Through some 300 posts I have demolished every single argument you have made. Back up your statements like I have backed up mine. Your refusal to address my postings and to ignore what they show, is good evidence that you cannot refute my statements.
2264 posted on 7/4/02 10:58 AM Pacific by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2261 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Its easy, you have two options:
1. Explain why in all of the above studies the authors observed gene duplication and its expression.
In the first place, no one has observed gene duplication and expression. What they have observed is duplicate genes. That is nothing new. From the nonsense you posted - headlines essentially - we cannot even tell if the genes question were exact duplicates or close relatives. There are a lot of close relative genes. Their existence does not mean that they are duplicates or were ever duplicated and expressed as a result of evolution.
Let's look at your first link. It says: " It is generally assumed, but never verified, that esterase activity, and therefore resistance, is monotonically related to gene amplification. ". Did you see the not verified. Again you are showing your lack of reading comprehension and why I do not accept headlines as proof of anything.
Let's look at your second link. It says :If there are two copies of the gene for the enzyme, regulation should still act correctly. I say 'should' because as far as I know regulation of multicopy genes has not been studied experimentally. My expectations...". Well, I don't care beans for his expectations. Let him prove it. In fact, the guy you quoted is agreeing with my statement! You really need to read the stuff you post! So again, I have been proven correct.
As a matter of fact I can tell you why I know that there is no proof of any mutated gene ever being expressed. Remember Phil Sharp who won the Nobel Prize in 1995 for his work on the mutated Drosophila gene? (see post#2184) He got the prize for destroying a gene. Now would you not think that if someone had been able to show the creation and use of a gene they would not have gotten a Nobel Prize and we would have heard of it? I know so, you know so, and that is additional proof that there is no proof of a mutated duplicate ever being expressed.
2313 posted on 7/4/02 9:44 PM Pacific by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2270 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
The genes were duplicated only after selective pressure.
I refuted your evidence - with the words of the scientists you quoted themselves. You just keep arrogantly repeating you have proof when it has been decisively refuted. Clearly you are totally evidence proof.
2319 posted on 7/4/02 10:23 PM Pacific by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2315 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Gore stop crying,
I am not crying, I am laughing. You think people do not see what you guys are trying to do with your insults?
I have provided truckloads of evidence for every bogus assertion of yours.
The only evidence I have seen from you is the posting on the Nobel Prize winners on Post# 2168, Post#2169 and Post#2170 which were thoroughly refuted on Post#2185, Post#2184, and Post#2187, and the post on duplicate genes on Post#2270 which was thoroughly refuted in Post#2313 and Post# 2319.
2331 posted on 7/5/02 8:09 AM Pacific by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2326 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
That was a very lame response G3K.
Calling my response lame does not refute it. From post#2313:
'" It is generally assumed, but never verified, that esterase activity, and therefore resistance, is monotonically related to gene amplification. ". Did you see the not verified? ' Oh and how come he did not win the Nobel Prize if his research proves evolution? One would think that research that would finally prove what evos have been trying to prove for 150 years would have won a Nobel Prize, don't ya think?
2332 posted on 7/5/02 8:17 AM Pacific by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2325 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
For the learning impaired...where they saw gene duplcation, they saw more enzyme activity (i.e. increase in gene expression)
So what? The above does not mean that the new genes are expressed at all. In fact, as I said before, this guy would have won a Nobel Prize if he had proven such a thing. He did not. Here, let me give you an article that will clear up your ignorance:
The brain differences are more a matter of quantity than quality. Differences in the amount of gene and protein expression, rather than differences in the structure of the genes or proteins themselves, distinguish the two species.
From: Researchers Uncover Brain Patterns That Differentiate Humans From Chimpanzees
Seems the genes in the brains of humans are expressed at least some 5 times more than those of monkeys. I mentioned that this happened, but of course you willfully ignored my statement because it contradicted your theory.
What that means regarding the subject at hand is that the little test they gave proved nothing. It certainly did not prove that the duplicate genes were expressed. Oh and yes the article you quoted was from an evolutionist organization (Institut des Sciences de l'Evolution) and even the guy that wrote it, in spite of his bias, in the article you claim otherwise, said that the article did not prove the expression of the new genes. You really should stop hanging around evolutionist sites and start learning what science is really finding out. For those who want to re-read the article you posted it is here
2419 posted on 7/5/02 7:11 PM Pacific by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2407 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Gore3000 is deliberately trying to misrepresent the facts
Your ignorance, bias or dishonesty is deliberately misrepresenting the facts. You are too ignorant, or too dishonest to be aware of the effects of gene expression. You keep rearguing the same points in the hope of boring me to death. Your statements have been refuted again in post#2119. You lost before and you will keep losing because as I have said evolution is garbage, not science. And BTW, not a single statement I made, way back in post#1605 has been refuted yet. Nor has anyone found a species that has been macro-evolutionarily transformed into another one. Nor has anyone been able to tell us from what species euglena or the platypus evolved from. You folk are losing big, so all you have left is arrogance and insults the last resort of losers.
2426 posted on 7/5/02 7:39 PM Pacific by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2409 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Remember all of those hox gene changes I posted about a million posts ago?
Yup, and the experiment for which they guy won a Nobel Prize was for destroying the genes! The poor fly could fly less well as a result. However, let me say this, it may be good evidence of evolutionary theory indeed. It shows perfectly that it is total garbage. You have a mutation that destroys a gene, makes the fly less fit and you call that proof of evolution! Seems like proof of DEVOLUTION. Perhaps you folk will like to change your theory and say that bacteria descended from men? At the rate mutations destroy genes we should soon be there!
2431 posted on 7/5/02 7:53 PM Pacific by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2423 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
2438 posted on 7/5/02 9:29 PM Pacific by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2436 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
The human-chimp study is does not address this at all.
You really are a bore. Of course it does. It shows that it is how the genes are expressed that matters, not how many genes there are. Humans can get five more times the output from a gene than the monkeys. And as a matter of fact, people in danger and such can and indeed do amazing feats of strength that they could never accomplish otherwise. People in a rage have much more strength than when they are calm. These are known facts and they directly support my statements (not to mention that the evo scientist who wrote the article does not claim what you say either).
2440 posted on 7/5/02 9:48 PM Pacific by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2439 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Why would the genes duplicate at all if this was the case?
For the same reason that mutations occur even though they are almost never beneficial - mistakes happen, transcription errors happen. Perhaps the insecticide is causing it. The way many medicines and chemicals work is to try to destroy a specific part of the attacking organism. This is done so that there will be as few bad side effects as possible.
2446 posted on 7/6/02 7:10 AM Pacific by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2441 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
You are being dishonest. This is exactly what the study says. Gene duplcation, esterase activity and resistance all covary.
No, I am not being dishonest, I made a direct quote from the summary you posted. All that the experimenter claims (an evolutionist working for an organization trying to prove evolution) is that they vary together. This is not proof that the new genes are expressed, the author does not make such a claim, and as I showed you already in Post #2440 and Post# 2419 the increased expression of existing genes is a likely explanation. So no, your article does not prove what you claim it proves.
2447 posted on 7/6/02 7:27 AM Pacific by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2442 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Well, Nonsense, Prof. I am singularly unimpressed. Lots of words, no substance.
Your arguments were as devoid of logic then as they are now.
I guess you figure cutting and pasting old out of context garbage excuses you from addressing my last three posts.
Yup, and your arguments were refuted just as well then as now. You repeat the same arguments, you get the same answers. Care to refute any of the arguments made in my post? You had a chance before, you have another one now. You are still arguing that 2 - 2 does not equal zero. You need to add some 29,500 genes and some 2,900,000,000 base pairs of DNA to get from bacteria to man, you have not shown how a single one has been added. If evolution cannot show that then it cannot be true. Neither you nor anyone else has shown it.
This is evolution... LIES--FRAUD---bias...
evo superstition belongs back in your esoteric cult---CIRCUS!
Swami--GURU---ponzi scam artist evo MOONIE cult/RELIGION---ideology!
RINGMASTER...Ron L Hubbards---E-Machine--'clears'...
you need help...to find---get back to reality!
Deprogramming!
Okay, dighton, you owe the federal government for the cleaning of one monitor and keyboard. I was drinking an RC Cola when I read your 1358 post and, in laughing, not only spit what I had in my mouth all over the place, but then I dropped the can upside down on the keyboard.
Don't be surprised if agents of the Illuminati come to pay you a visit to collect!
Anyway, whenever I read old oxi-natos posts, or Mr. Spikes, or .. now .. f.Christian's, I read them in the style of that great artiste and thespian, William Shatner, using that famous rhythm and style that he always brought to his unforgettable roles.
That keeps me laughing most of the day.
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.