Posted on 03/13/2002 4:47:26 AM PST by JediGirl
You claimed you had not seen it even though it had been posted twice, it had been posted to you once and the post you responded to had the number of the post on which it was originally given but you still said I had not defined it. Blame your dishonesty not me.
The gene duplication mentioned there was not macro-evolution, here's why:
1. the gene already existed so there is no proof that duplication ever happened.
2. the gene remained the same size. You need different size genes for new faculties.
3. the "new" gene coded for a very similar function. It enabled the better consumption of a protein similar to the one the other gene was coding for.
The gene in question was identical to another gene in the monkey's genome, and doesn't appear in any of the monkey's relatives' genomes. This is a good indication that the gene in question is a duplication.
2. the gene remained the same size. You need different size genes for new faculties.
Why? I never heard of this being a prerequisite. Could not the new gene encode for something requiring fewer base pairs than the original gene? Could not the new gene be incorporated, along with other unused sections of genome to encode for something requiring more base pairs? Do you actually consider the implications of your statements before making them?
3. the "new" gene coded for a very similar function. It enabled the better consumption of a protein similar to the one the other gene was coding for.
But since we already have one gene producing the required protein, the other gene is free to mutate or absorb changes.
Such as the development of earbones revealed in the fossil record of mammals?
You folk really have an ear-bone fetish (at least mine with the mammary glands is more understandable)! There is no proof of the development of ear bones by gradual evolution, none at all. If I am wrong, give the proof. Just the mere existence of ear bones does not show that they evolved. See this is the problem with most of the arguments of evolutionists - you say that if it exists it is proof of evolution. No it is not. You have to prove that it evolved gradually, that species evolved gradually. There is hardly any proof of such (if any) in the fossil record. If evolution was indeed true there should be tons of evidence in the fossil record of species transforming themselves into other species.
"and new faculties.
Such as the development of flight revealed in the fossil record of birds?"
See my response above. Certainly no such proof has been given on this thread. And no archaeopteryx is not the progenitor of birds. Even evolutionist scientists have admitted that. In fact archaeopteryx - a feathered dinosaur with no progenitors and no descendants is more a proof of creationism than of evolution.
What do you expect when you argue with George Orwell's Memory Hole?
See my answer to the above in post#1660. Homo erectus was extinct at least 100,000 years before homo sapiens arose. It was not the progenitor of man. As to the reasoning, it is only circular reasoning - since you believe evolution to be true, man must have had an ancestor, since the answer to a question cannot be God, therefore man must have had an ancestor. These whole threads are a discussion whether those assumptions are true or not, so that circular reasoning is proof of nothing.
But the rabid defense of a religion hiding behind science is not science. It is ideolology.
The wrong sect is using the name "Scientology", because fossil-thumping is a much better home for the name.
1603 posted on 3/23/02 3:12 PM Hawaii-Aleutian by sayfer bullets
Science makes progress...
Actually our understanding--true science vs false science of Creation--God makes progress...this excludes--eliminates manmade ideas; i.e., morphing mechanisms...fabricated/conjurred explanations---rigged-stolen-results...double bookkeeping--embezzlement---thruth-effeciency/equity Evasion/denial...
an intellectual redistribution--transfer of human resouces to animal morph maniac defects---freeloaders--theft-lie-tax ring!
How about intellectual floating tax/pay castles of the sheriff nottinhaves regarding clues--truth honesty!
Animal morphing theories reward the ineffecient--the liars---the intellectual lazy--stupid---even generates--replicates themselves via crossbreeding the human race to attain---drone/clone-dumb!
Matter of fact evolution is a brand new car stolen on a flat bed truck with the wheels stolen off it being dragged by whipped driven slaves who out of fear--retribution won't criticize the free riders who throw the candy--crumbs out the window to collect more tote-their-bargers---a hunn invasion--pillage--plunder--orgy!
Dnz--USSC gladiators in public schools--"education"--entertainment---free bread-circuses--devalued humanhood/tyranny!
Evolution is anti--science/progess---social-intellectual retardation!
From the article (the part you did not post):
The numbers at the bottom of the graph are computed values. Specifically, whenever a first lower molar tooth was found, its length and width were measured. The values plotted are the logarithm of the length times the width. The researcher reports reasonable evidence that this value correlates well with body size. He used this approach because there were a lot more teeth than anything else. (Teeth often fossilize.) By measuring just teeth, it was possible to have a lot more data points.
Each horizontal line shows the range, the mean, and the standard error of the mean. As you can see from the ranges, a larger sample would have been nice.
From teeth they made up two totally new species and a new genus. When I say that paleontology is a bad joke, I mean it.
BTW - they did not even have ear-bones for these folk! How do they know they were even mammals?
BBTW - no I will not go away and let evolutionist lies go unanswered.
As to evolution and paleontology specifically there are some problems using brain size. First of all, the size of the skull does not necessarily tell us close enough the size of the brain. Neanderthal had a larger skull than homo sapiens, yet we know it was not as smart. The article says that the folds of the cerebral cortex are important as to the brain's capapbilities. Bones cannot answer that question.
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.