Replies

Vade said "It's a highly conserved gene

It is not a highly conserved gene, in the articles proof#3 itself it says that cytochrome c is used for molecular clock purposes because it changes so much between species. As to the rest, someone was lying by either ommission or commission. Does not really matter who. Vade has not given any reference for his statement. So we would need to see that to make a determination. Let me note one thing though - the total sequence of a protein is significant. If one cuts off or adds to a protein any length from either side functioning is changed.

It is not a highly conserved gene, in the articles proof#3 itself it says that cytochrome c is used for molecular clock purposes because it changes so much between species.

Cytochrome c is the slowest-ticking of molecular clocks. That means it doesn't get mutations very often. That means you don't expect a big difference between man and chimp and there isn't one.

Do you acknowledge your protests about the mutation between man and chimp were based on ignoring the difference between a protein itself and the gene that codes it?

Do you acknowledge that you were wrong when you said there had never been amino acids found in a meteorite?

Do you acknowledge that you were wrong when you said DNA eliminates a whale-hippo relationship?

Are you ever going to get back to me on why, if the reptile-jawbone-to-mammal-earbone transition was just an artifact of Cuffey's drawing fakery, there's a parallel transformation occuring in mammalian fetuses? You had the nerve to spin it as "Lies, all lies." Why does this other line of evidence point the same way?

... As to the rest, someone was lying by either ommission or commission. Does not really matter who. Vade has not given any reference for his statement. So we would need to see that to make a determination.

So... did you understand the difference between a protein and the gene that codes for it? Did you understand how 2 genes can have 1 coding difference and still produce the exact same protein? Did you understand why Vade's statement re: human vs. chimp versions of the cytochrome c gene had 1 base pair difference, and Theobald's statement that the cytochrome c proteins themselves were exactly the same, are not contradicting each other?

Let me note one thing though - the total sequence of a protein is significant. If one cuts off or adds to a protein any length from either side functioning is changed.

Not true at all! The biggest paragraph in Theobald's article explained in detail that many, many, MANY substitutions were possible in the protein itself and it still worked just fine.

This is important, of course. This shows why your argument against gene duplications leading to new genes with new functions is just plain wrong.