Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Peteos in post #27:
"I don't think the unity among lifeforms is good evidence of common discent. The statement that similar DNA is used for similar lifeforms by a creater is signifigant enough for me."
This is a good point, and I appreciate what you say about the importance of the nested hierarchy.
Another answer is the accumulation of mutations. Fatal mutations do not accumulate, they are selected out, natural selection. Harmless mutations accumulate, such as substituting one amino acid for another where the overall structure (and function) of the protein (or enzyme) is not changed.
Another form of harmless mutation is when one codon for a particular amino acid changes to another codon for the same amino acid. Body structure and function do not change but the accumulation of harmless mutations can be measured.
__________________ The Land Tax: Untaxing Labor & Capital
Smidlee in post #35:
"The same when evolutionist comes to a paradox or something hard for them to explain (like the origin of sex) they don't throw out their beliefs and views but hope they will find answer in the future."
I have commented on the origin of sex in primitive worms. The evidence is that worms came together and exchanged DNA before sexual organs developed to facilitate this process. Form follows function, as they say, in this case quite literally.
I know this is OT yet : Exchanging DNA isn't the same as having sex to reproduce. I understanding that bacteria can exchange DNA without sex just fine (not required to reproduce) which seem to be another strike against sex. It was once reasoned that sex was necessary to exchange DNA which have shown this isn't alway the case.
It's a lot easier to get lucky with yourself than to get lucky with someone else.
P.S Here is an article called "Humans walk upright to conserve energy" where an evolutionist indirectly points out the high cost of sex. Thus saving energy for sex is such of an advantage in evolutionist's mind then asexual would be a huge advantage.
__________________ Romans 1:16 "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth:..."
Romans 3:3-4 "For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar;"
Last edited by Smidlee; 19th July 2007 at 07:30 AM.
I know this is OT yet : Exchanging DNA isn't the same as having sex to reproduce. I understanding that bacteria can exchange DNA without sex just fine (not required to reproduce) which seem to be another strike against sex. It was once reasoned that sex was necessary to exchange DNA which have shown this isn't alway the case.
but this is at the core of things. Ultimately being able to mix DNA means that genes have a higher possibility of survival in certain cases, since they would be more likely to be present in other bodies with beneficial genes than if they remained purely along a single ancestral line.
It's a lot easier to get lucky with yourself than to get lucky with someone else.
but then if all the offspring have a gene that suffers as a result of natural selection, then the entire progeny of an individual are at a higher chance of getting wiped out.
__________________ MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.
(Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome, Nature 2005, available online)
wow, a table..... which it would be nice if you would actually explain rather than going "hey look at this and this, TO might be lying!"
you have to be a bit more rigorous mark, after all, you do remember getting your butt whipped into next week on head2christ due to your shoddy understanding of science, right?
__________________ MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.
so let me get this straight mark... you're complaining that the TO page, which references a 2000 paper to get the 1% value - one year before the Human Genome draft was released (2001) and five yeard before the figure you quote (2005) somehow means that because TO said the human genome consists of 1% ERVs and the recent study says 8%, then there is a possibility that they are lying? I don't get how you bring the lying thing into this. Furthermore, I'm not exactly sure what the predictions you are complaining about is.
__________________ MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.
stop pretending mark. You were asking if they were lying abut the evidence. that is insinuation if I ever saw it.
I don't think they are lying in this instance, I think they are wrong. Evolutionists can and do lie but mostly they conflate, convolute and contradict the actual evidence.
and what is the relevance in the change in numbers? You're quoting a 2005 paper and they quote a 2000 paper.
I did tell you Jet, 235 insertions a million base pairs long in the chimpanzee genome in five million years. I already know you have no interest an actual adaptive evolution so I wont bother asking you about the molecular mechanisms for unique human traits.
What I will do is confront you with the real evidence and watch how you change the subject and resort to fallacy. I don't know what your interest is in this subject but what I study is you, the evolutionist.
__________________
“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)
Linear Mode
