Posted on 03/24/2002 7:03:09 PM PST by scripter
Oh, cut it out! Just say it: he lives under a bridge.
What's so difficult about that?
It is right above in post #777.
I am quite aware of the above. However, I am quite aware that exactly the same, means exactly the same - no changes. In addition to which, when scientists, real scientists write the DNA code for a gene, they do not write it that way. They just use letters for each of the 20 amino acids produced. That is what they sequence for, so you lose again.
Also, if you know the above, you certainly know that DNA is the code that makes the proteins, so your whole argument about proteins and DNA having nothing to do with each other was a blatant lie.
Well I finally caught up with the thread and it shows you to be a complete liar. Clearly you do not mind lying for evolution, making yourself look like an idiot for evolution, or playing childish games for evolution. Just as you misrepresented my statements you knew darned well that the relationship between the DNA code and the proteins produced are identical. So yes, you have proven yourself a liar. Congratulations!
Oh, and by the way, the article you gave as proof of macro-evolution is still bunk. It is self-contradictory as I showed in my original post -before you started with the lies and obfuscations.
No what I want is for someone to show the descent of the traits of the platypus from one specific species. You have lots of species to pick from - over a million living species and perhaps ten times that which are extinct. Can you not find just one from which the platypus's features might have descended?
This is good enough for a whole other thread. You may be right, but from what I've read, including a later recantation from a star witness shows me she was innocent. The FBI jailed her to put pressure on Julius to confess and give up the whole spy ring, and when he didn't spill everything, they had no choice but to proceed with her prosecution or they'd look bad.
Wrong. In a created world, I would assume that unless a particular protein is involved directly in a process that makes one species different from another, i.e. a "furry" protein for cats vs. a "naked" protein for humans, it should have the identical sequence, both at nucleotide and at amino acid levels, and an identical function. From a creationist standpoint, there is absolutely no reason exposure to a certain toxin should be lethal to a guinea pig while a several fold higher dose merely causes a persistant rash in humans. The same protein mediates both responses. The sequence is similar, but not identical in both species. Evolution, not creation, explains the wide variance in response to the toxin.
It is really irrelevant whether Darwin knew about Mendel's work or not. He knew enough about genetics to know that certain observable phenotypes may be passed from parent to offspring.
What mendellian genetics shows is that it is very difficult, if not impossible to pass on a new trait throughout an entire population.
It shows nothing of the sort. A favorable mutation is one that, by definition, confers a survival advantage to the organism. An organism with an advantage has a better chance of reproducing, thus of spreading the mutation. An unfavorable mutation tends to be bred out of a population, and a neutral mutation remains in the population at pretty much a stable frequency. The spread of mutations throughout a population is not random, nor does it take a long time. This is all basic biology, which is usually taught in freshman level biology courses.
Now evolutionists thing that there has been enough time for all these new genes to spread throughout all these different species, but that is not the case. The two-three billion years since life began on earth are insufficient time for the numerous mutations that were necessary to spread throughout all living things when the delays caused by Mendellian genetics are taken into account.
Actually, a couple of billion years is an inconceivable amount of time. Consider how quickly the flu virus mutates itself, or how quickly bacteria develop resistances to new antibiotics, or insects to new pesticides. These events take only a handful of years.
Actually, she's copying Robin Williams in his post-drug years. See "Live at the Met."
(hand covering eyes, head shaking...)
Those scientists were in the church's pocket, they toed the party line because to do otherwise was dangerous. And it was the church that had Galileo arrested for his heresy in contradicting the Bible's verision of things.
This seems to somewhat mirror the modern heresy of evolution.
This is a boilerplate part of much religious doctrine. If the masses get too smart, they might start questioning. So you build in safeguards, warnings.
So ore-gay's an oll-tray but I won't ell-tay.
Oh, cut it out! Just say it: he lives under a bridge.
Ah, the fascinating evolution of language in action! Remember, a troll such as gore3000 is not a creature who lives under a bridge. A troll is a fisherman.
Let you prove that the Invisible Pink Unicorn (PBUHH) did not create the world with a trampling of Her hooves. We have text records given to man by Her Pinkness "which explain the origin of everything including the spiritual rebelliousness exhibited by those who have no Faith."
Good luck disproving that.
You're mixing religion and science. There was no scientific theory for origins, only ancient creation myths (in your case, started by polytheistic nomadic desert tribes, later edited to reconcile the more recent monotheistic version with the original polytheistic one).
Actually, it's more or less one gene, one function, unless you are referring to the production of antibodies, which is a completely different matter.
What I was talking about is the physical movement of a piece of DNA from one location to another, either on the same chromosome or another. In lower organisms, this kind of shuffling is quite common; the fruit fly, for example, has enzymes for just this purpose. Where the new functions can arise is this: Proteins are modular, with regions of highly ordered structure. There really aren't that many different structures that occur in proteins--alpha helices, beta sheets, random coils--and protein functions are determined chemically, by the type of amino acid (acidic, basic, hydrophobic, hydrophilic, etc.) predominant at any particular region of the protein. Suppose, by their biochemistries, that Protein X can attach to DNA, and Protein Y can bind to a hormone, and a shuffling event occurs such that a new Protein XY is produced, having both properties. Furthermore, by mutating the DNA binding site, the protein can attach to a different DNA sequence, and by mutating the hormone binding site, the protein will recognize a different hormone. Voilà, new proteins with new functions.
In fact, I think it is this "shuffling" that is the cause of what is called micro-evolution - changes caused by the environment to help a species adapt to it.
You can't embrace the idea of "micro-evolution" while rejecting the idea of "macro-evolution." It is all the same thing.
Let me guess, you believe Nostradamus too?
How do you think these psychics (con men & women) stay in work today? If you word a prediction correctly, and only push occurrences that can be fit into the wording, you too can be thought of as a great predictor.
I've seen James Randi do a cold reading just like Sylvia Browne did, and he very impressed the audience. Of course later he showed them it was all a sham and exposed his methods. But people keep believing...
Congratulations. My great-great aunt died because she was waiting for her miracle rather than going to the hospital.
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.