What are the Weaknesses of Evolution?

[Inan3]

That is not taking it literally, that is taking it metaphorically. If Jesus literally were a door, he would not be a person, he would be a board with dimensions of approximately 7'x3'x2" with a latching device on one edge that is operated by a handles or knobs on both faces. This board would be attached by hinged devices to a framework, usually that of a building. Jesus is not any of those things, so he is not literally a door. He is metaphorically represented as a door.
[/COLOR]

I find it very deceptive to only include a part of a definition.

Door can also be defined as:

3 : a means of access or participation : OPPORTUNITY <opens new doors> <door to success>

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Very weak argument WC. You forgot the rest of the definition.

1 : a usually swinging or sliding barrier by which an entry is closed and opened; also : a similar part of a piece of furniture
2 : DOORWAY
3 : a means of access or participation : OPPORTUNITY <opens new doors> <door to success>

And yet I have the following definitions:

• [SIZE=-1]A door is a structure in a wall that allows easy conversion between an opening and a closed wall. It is found in many houses and other buildings, as well as in vehicles, cupboards, cages, etc.See door furniture for a discussion of attachments to doors such as doorhandles and doorknobs. [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door[/SIZE]
• The horizontal stiffening members of framed and paneled doors.
  [SIZE=-1]www.steelbuildinghelp.com/steel_buildings_glossary_q-r.htm[/SIZE]
• A software bulletin board application that notifies a user of a program that is needed to run or executed certain procedures. (ie games and multi-media sites). download To copy data from a main source to a peripheral device. The term is often used to describe the process of copying a file from an online service or bulletin board service (BBS) to one's own computer. Downloading can also refer to copying a file from a network file server to a computer on the network.
  [SIZE=-1]www.uta.edu/infosys/e_comm/terms/term_d.htm[/SIZE]
• Loewen product swing is determined from the outside
  [SIZE=-1]www.loewen-window-centre.com/glossary.htm[/SIZE]
• The window located in a door slab. This window is usually safety glass and may be reinforced with wire for security.
  [SIZE=-1]www.satelliteco.com/glossary/h-l.html[/SIZE]
• A door used underground to direct ventilation.
  [SIZE=-1]www.readinganthracite.com/glossary.htm[/SIZE]
• A vertical door edge seam which is welded over its entire length, except at hardware cutouts.
  [SIZE=-1]www.overly.com/door/index.cfm[/SIZE]

I see no mention of a non-physical access point. Consider the term 'gateway drug': can you guess where the word 'gateway' comes from? That's right, from the physical gate.

Can I ask you a question are you between birth and puberty or are you #3?


child (chld)
n. pl. chil·dren (chldrn)
1. A person between birth and puberty.
2. a. An unborn infant; a fetus.
b. An infant; a baby.
3. One who is childish or immature.

Not that I see the relevance, but I am post-pubescent. I also object to the implication that I am 'childish' or 'immature'; need I remind you of the no-flaming rule?

 

[Skaloop]

I find it very deceptive to only include a part of a definition.

Door can also be defined as:

3 : a means of access or participation : OPPORTUNITY <opens new doors> <door to success>

That in itself is a definition based upon metaphor. And remember, dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. People use the word "door" metaphorically as you have described, so it's included in the dictionary. Nonetheless, a door is still a physical, literal object.

 

[NailsII]

This is basic theology, the question has been asked and answered a million times, but I think most people wonder this. Basically the sisters/daughters werent mentioned. In old testament culture, female offspring were rarely if ever mentioned, even in the royal lineage chronicles. Apparently the writers of the day didnt deem them important enough to write about.

No, you have ignored the uestipon completely, so I will elaborate.
Caina and able married - did they marry their sister?
Or their daughters?
There was only adam and eve - no other couples to have children, so they either had sex with their mother and married their own daughters or they married their sisters.
If god had chosen to create two wives for them (as I am sure you will answer) then why is this not mentioned?
This is special creation after all, a monumentous event.
If he did this, he doubled the number of perfect humans on the earth - must be worth a side-note at least.

 

[FishFace]

You guys don't know about God. You accuse me of being insecure....Of being fearful, you make fun etc. but you don't really know about God.

Correction: you think we don't really know about God. We, of course, think you don't. I, at least, have experienced both sides of the coin. Have you? I can remember what it was like to change from being a christian to a Christian (being Born Again, I suppose some would call it, but such terms weren't really mentioned.) and from a Christian to an agnostic, from an agnostic to an atheist.

You can't tell me I never gave God a chance. You can't even tell me I don't give him a chance because, if he wanted me to believe in him, I would be quite happy to - were there evidence.
I gave God many over-generous chances. I even wholeheartedly believed in him for a good few years. I felt the presence of God (so I thought) numerous times, and yet now, all I need to do is concentrate and breathe slowly and I can experience exactly the same "presence."

You tell me that I can't take Genesis literally....that the evidence for evolution shows that it's all a fairy tale. But I've lived 36 years knowing Him and I know He is as real as you are, and to me He's even more real because I don't know you very well but that doesn't make you a fairy tale. What I'm trying to say is I've lived 36 years this way and after a couple of weeks here on the forum I'm not going to turn my whole life over to what scientists or anybody says is acceptable if it tries to say that a God Who has never let me down....has directed my life....healed my body and my family....given me peace during dark times...joy in the midst of turmoil. These aren't just words to some song this is my life and the life of many, many other Chrisitans I have met along the way. So yes I'm going to trust those that agree with me before those who do not. But I will continue to learn about the things you say. I won't accept them because you say it but I will look up things that you reference and I will consider them with an open mind. That's all I can tell you. If you can't accept that there's no more I can do.

You act like giving up on a literal genesis is the same as giving up on God. While we'd be happy if you also became an atheist (although perhaps not overjoyed, since it could be painful for you and others) all we want at the moment is to teach you the truth about biology.

You may not think Christians are honest

I'm sure most Christians are honest, just as most people are honest, but Creation Scientists are most definitely dishonest.

 

[FishFace]

TB I assure you that I am in no way under a misapprehension. It seems to me, though, that you are. You see a "true" Christian believes the whole Bible to the inspired and literal Word of God.

You rightly put true in quotation marks. All that is required for a Christian to be a true Christian is for him to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. Not even all of them, really. Oh, and you have to accept him as your Lord and Saviour. Nothing to do with Biblical Literalism.

Since most of your fellow Christians are quite happy to believe that the Bible was written by fallible men, and is, as such, fallible as well. Many Christians accept that the Bible has contradictions inside it. Very very few, outside of the US, believe in a literal Genesis.

If we don't see that the WHOLE is the Word of God then how could we believe any of it?

Well, you have to start treating it all with a healthy dose of skepticism, it's true. Somehow, your friends manage it. But if you think a book trumps actual evidence in the game of reality, think again.

I don't deny that there may be some people who call themselves Christians, when in fact they are not, who have not problem with doing this but these are the same people who have no problem with slaughtering people and going on witch hunts and twisting the Word of God to fit their doctrinal errors. They are religious but they are not true born again Christians. These are those creationists who you will find lying not true born again Christian creationists.

To be born again you have to accept Jesus into your life as your Lord and Saviour, correct? I don't see any part of that which requires you to disregard science as a valid way of determining the truth, and to disregard any evidence in contradiction with a certain book.

As I have noted in my posts, I am studying it on both sides of the issue and from a scientific standpoint.

If you truly approach this issue from a scientific standpoint, I guarantee you, you will gradually realise the breadth of evidence out there supporting evolution, the lies and deceit that has been cast before you, in the guise of evidence, by dishonest people. Some of those lies are so infamous we refer to them as PRATTs (Points Refuted a Thousand Times) such as the one about two parts of the same mammoth dating millions of years apart. This story was repeated, and still is, in spite of the fact that those repeating it have been informed that it is based on a misreading of the article detailing the dating. This is just an example, of course, but much of Creation Science is based on similar deceit.

If you approach this scientifically, studying the evidence, you will begin to see these things. Hopefully you will begin to wonder why so many of the creationist claims are deceitful, and consequently wonder whether the others are so reliable too.

It will be a slow process, at least at first. But if you want to hear the evidence, I, for one, am happy to explain it to you as often as you like, in as simple or as complicated detail as you like. I'm not here to deconvert you - I don't bother with the GA forum at the moment, but if you give me a hearing, I will try and give you the evidence for evolution, as I have already started doing.

I am certain that others here will help me where my rather limited knowledge fails. Chalnoth is good on physics. Thaumaturgy and Baggins are good on geology. I specialise in anything mathematical or epistemological.

Seeings I do not know of the incidents that you speak of I cannot offer opinion but I do know that they do say the same of evolutionists. Now, who is one in the middle supposed to believe. I will prove and falsify you both.




Perhaps another thread sometime.[/quote]

 

[NailsII]

I wouldn't think Adam would have had aforementioned redundant genes, they would have somehow became that way from an ideal state(as I already said)

I don't follow the logic here, are you asserting that these genes would be detrimental? helpful or nuetral, or excess baggage? Please break down you point into some type of digestible package for the common man. I'm really not impressed with big words, my only wish here is that you make some sense.

Also, what possible way can you say that the genes "must have" been in Adam's genome based on the fact that they are found presently?

Most of the time redundant genes are neutral; as they are no longer transcribed into a functional protein they have no effect other than to just sit in the genome.
The assertion is this: if we and chimpanzees have the same redunant genes at the same points in our genome, it is conclusive evidence of a common ancestor.
And so if all humans have them, we must have inherited it from a common ancestor within the last 6-10 million years (this figure comes from analysis of the small differences in the redundant genes due to average mutation rate, and is verified by other genetic evidence and the fossil record) - if adam was the first human 6-10,000 years ago it must have been from him.
So the chimps have the same patterns, all by chance?

I think that you are trying to use similarities of defect as an argument which might provide evidence of a common ancestor. And indeed it certainly does provide such evidence. However, the evidence is certainly not conclusive, it would be better IMO to first make the observation(which you have done) and find more direct causes of the redundant gene rather than saying that a common ancestor passed it down. The question I would pose to you is: 1)What ancestor passed it down first?

A common ancestor of humans and chimps, possibly Sahelanthropus tchadensis (7–6 mya) and Orrorin tugenensis (6 mya), but the evidence is scarse and so inconclusive.

You mentioned that it appeared in other mammals; 2)what other mammals? and what connection do they have with us (what alleged connection is what Im asking)

Alleged? Chimpanzees and bonobos, for certain. They share approximately 98% of our genome, including the imperfections.

and 3) probably the most pervasive question I might have is what, specifically caused the gene redundancy? mutations obviously, but under what condition? in what time period?

No, redundant genes are rarely caused by mutation.
This pathway would require the operon (an on/off switch for the gene) to be mutated, which would render the lot unusable.
Haemoglobin genes (Hb) are multiple-redundant - we have 6 non-functional copies, these can originate as an error in DNA copying. Without the correct operon, the gene would never be used and would just sit there, useless and mutate at an average rate.
If the gene is copied with an operon, it can be used and still allows mutaions that would not produce a toxic product, as we still have the original.
What is striking about Hb is that the copies are found in different locations, different chromosomes in fact.
Out of interest, Myoglobin (the molecule which allows our muscles to handle oxygen transfer so efficiently) is a direct relative of Hb, and we have more than one active functional Hb gene, stanard haemoglobin is made from two alpha and two beta chains. There is also zeta, which is found in embryos.
But it is evidence for us to look at and track down our origins.

I am just more or less helping you present a more understandable argument. I feel that I already answered the question yesterday. Why do redundant genes exist? mutations. What more can I tell you here? As it is I think the scenario your outlining is pretty vague and general to warrant any type of direct answer.

Thanks for your help, but i can't give you a comclusive argument without big words or links to evidence - and you made it clear that you want opinions in laymenss terms, not hard science. So I am stucjkbetween a rock and a hard place here really.

Why do redundant genes exist? Good question, special creation certainly has no answer.
They are purely errors by an imperfect system, yet they can provide the raw material for new genes by mutation.
After all, alpha Hb is only 4 (I think - must check) amino acids different from beta Hb - easily explainable in terms of one copying error creating two genes and one has been modified.
One more change causes sickle cell anemia, good for resisting malaria, not good for normal modern life.

Well, I would simply say that similar processes caused similar genetic changes... I mean basically I can only give a general answer to a general question. I, like anybody else, need specifics. Therefore it is somewhat asinine to think that because someone hasn't answered your questions that no answers exist.

There is no known mechanism that would account for the similarity in human and chimp DNA and special creation. It ties in very nicely with evolution by natural selection, however.

This is definitely evidence of a common ancestor but once again, is it conclusive? Your going to see similar designs across the board and your going to see similar defects, that would certainly be within the realm of a created biosphere.

Similar designs, yes. But not similar imperfections, because humans were genetically perfect only 6,000 years ago, right?
There has not been enough time to accumilate such genetic imperfections, and the odds on it happening twice by chance in different species? not worth calculating. Infinately small, but not impossible.
i would say the odds on producing a working 747 by a tornado randomly blowing around parts of a junk yard is more probable.

Right, but Im not talking about mutagens, though mutagens cause mutations, they dont always cause mutations. Therefore your incorrect if you are assuming that human dna mutates 1000 times per 24 hours. So yes I suggest you produce a link for further discussion please.

You have avoided the point. We have evolved a system to correct and protect against such problems, they arise because the original blueprint for cellular life is frought with problems - badly designed, if you like.
But it works long enough for us to reproduce and raise our offspring, and that's all it takes.
And again, i could have terminal cancer but i can still produce sperm which will not cause that cancer in my offspring, so the mutation per person analogy is misleading - they won't all be passed on!!!

Well correct, your cells will rot in the ground, but if you have children your dna will be passed on, and since I am talking about mutations in dna, then it is very relevant to the population as a whole. All those little sperm cells we were talking about yesterday carry a full copy of your dna to the target.

But it is not identical to the DNA in my body cells as mutation will cause minor differences - the way the sperm cells are created also causes recombination of genes.

How long do you thing the population can sustain the mutational burden?

our population? indefinately. The energy requirements are minimal and we have the technology to deal with it.

The degeneration of the genome is not only evidence against evolution, but it is conclusive evidence. Evolution cannot explain it.

Evolution predicts the random changes in a populations DNA - it is this difference that gives selection the raw materials.
As for the degeneration of the genome, that requires the prior supposition that we were originally perfect and are getting less perfect all the time = bad science.
So there is again no conclusive evidence to refute evolution by natural selection which not only explains genetic difference, it predicted it 100 years before genetic testing.

If you remove your prior assumptions your arguments are not conclusive or supported by any known facts.
I'm sorry, but whoever put these ideas into your head was deliberately trying to mislead you.

 

[The Bellman]

I don't refute the fact that there are analogies in the Bible but you can take their meaning literally.

And if you do, you misinterpret them. Analogies are not to be taken literally; they are to be taken figuratively.

Jesus is the Door and Way into Salvation. He is the entrance, the passage way, the means to get there. You can take that literally.

You can, and you'd be wrong. He's not a door. He's not a vine. They are analogies. You don't take them literally...nobody does. Nobody takes the entire bible literally.

It's the message that is to be taken literally

Right. The message...which you get from taking the text not literally.

and the message of Genesis 1-11 is that GOD CREATED the Heavens and the Earth and all that is therein AND His origianl creation was good

And, of course, there is no part of evolutionary theory that contradicts this message.

I am not going to deny that or take that out of the way to satisfy the non-belief of so-called-christians or out-and-out atheists.

Good for you.

You said "most" Christians, what evidence do you have to back that up? I mean you do base all of life on evidence don't you? [/COLOR]
Based on what you've said, I don't think it's possible to demonstrate it to you, because anyone who doesn't agree with you (according to you) isn't a christian.

Now WHO are these many that note this as a dangerous view? Could you cite your references for this please?

Nope. I've said it. I've heard many ex-christians say it. If you don't believe it, I don't care.

Well they must have had a "bottom" of sand. Jesus said,[/COLOR]

So I surmise they didn't have the right foundation.

That's right, they didn't. Their foundation was based on a literal interpretation of the bible, leading to creationism.

It does not surprise me that "some" so-called-christians turn to atheism because they were not Chrisitans in the first place.

Ah, the old (rather weak, but entertaining) "they weren't real christians" defense. Nice try.

Spoken as a true atheist who knows nothing about God or His Word. Now, I should just take an atheists word about the things of God? I think not!!!!

No, spoken as a rational person who is aware that your view is the minority, and who is aware that nobody - including you - takes it entirely literally.

Roman Catholics are NOT Christians the are so-called-christians.

Ah, that's just funny.

Well, it would be if it wasn't so pathetic. Of course they're Christians.

No but the scripture does and it is very clear.

No, the scripture doesn't and no, it's not very clear. And even if it does that still doesn't make you the arbiter. Sorry, but that's God's job.

As an atheist I would say you have no understanding as to what is trivial and what is not in regards to Christianity.

And you would be wrong.
[/COLOR]

I don't need to because there are many who have and be assured I will provide that information when I do have more knowledge on it.

Yes, you do need to...well, to be honest about it, you do.

That is true I am biased in regards to creationism and you have given me no proof to believe otherwise.

At least you're honest enough to admit that you're biased. No wonder you haven't found sufficient evidence for evolution - you're not interested in doing so.

Well, don't worry about it too much TB becaue even without your advice I had made that determination of what I "should" investigate or not. You remember don't you ... I said "I" would falsify or prove both?

Oh, I won't worry about it at all. You've demonstrated you're just another narrow minded 'christian', convinced that he's right and everyone who disagrees is not only wrong, but not even a Christian. You're not interested in the truth, just in confirming what you already believe. How sad for you.

 

[Inan3]

And yet I have the following definitions:

• [SIZE=-1]A door is a structure in a wall that allows easy conversion between an opening and a closed wall. It is found in many houses and other buildings, as well as in vehicles, cupboards, cages, etc.See door furniture for a discussion of attachments to doors such as doorhandles and doorknobs. [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door[/SIZE]
• The horizontal stiffening members of framed and paneled doors.
  [SIZE=-1]www.steelbuildinghelp.com/steel_buildings_glossary_q-r.htm[/SIZE]
• A software bulletin board application that notifies a user of a program that is needed to run or executed certain procedures. (ie games and multi-media sites). download To copy data from a main source to a peripheral device. The term is often used to describe the process of copying a file from an online service or bulletin board service (BBS) to one's own computer. Downloading can also refer to copying a file from a network file server to a computer on the network.
  [SIZE=-1]www.uta.edu/infosys/e_comm/terms/term_d.htm[/SIZE]
• Loewen product swing is determined from the outside
  [SIZE=-1]www.loewen-window-centre.com/glossary.htm[/SIZE]
• The window located in a door slab. This window is usually safety glass and may be reinforced with wire for security.
  [SIZE=-1]www.satelliteco.com/glossary/h-l.html[/SIZE]
• A door used underground to direct ventilation.
  [SIZE=-1]www.readinganthracite.com/glossary.htm[/SIZE]
• A vertical door edge seam which is welded over its entire length, except at hardware cutouts.
  [SIZE=-1]www.overly.com/door/index.cfm[/SIZE]

I see no mention of a non-physical access point. Consider the term 'gateway drug': can you guess where the word 'gateway' comes from? That's right, from the physical gate.


Not that I see the relevance, but I am post-pubescent. I also object to the implication that I am 'childish' or 'immature'; need I remind you of the no-flaming rule?

I was but making reference to your name Wiccan-"Child". I was wondering if we were to take that literal or not so I referred to the definition of "Child". I was merely pointing out the foolishness of your argument.

I would say that long ago the rules of no-flaming had been broken in this thread.

Why is it that you all can dish it out but you cannot take it.

 

[Inan3]

I find this is not even worthy of an attempt to answer because all you want to do is spue out insults and show your apparent ignorance of God, Christianity and the Bible.

There were a couple of things that that I thought were quite ironic.

No, the scripture doesn't and no, it's not very clear. And even if it does that still doesn't make you the arbiter. Sorry, but that's God's job.

I thought you didn't believe in God.

At least you're honest enough to admit that you're biased. No wonder you haven't found sufficient evidence for evolution - you're not interested in doing so.

I haven't found sufficient evidence here because you haven't given any. But you are definitly in character with most atheists ..... doing what they love to do even more than promoting evolution .... bashing those who do not hold your point of view

Oh, I won't worry about it at all. You've demonstrated you're just another narrow minded 'christian', convinced that he's right and everyone who disagrees is not only wrong, but not even a Christian. You're not interested in the truth, just in confirming what you already believe. How sad for you.

My point proven

 

[TheOutsider]

Inane

There are plenty of Christians on this forum that do agree with the Theory of Evolution. Would the evidence be any more convincing coming from one of them?

 

[Inan3]

Inane

There are plenty of Christians on this forum that do agree with the Theory of Evolution. Would the evidence be any more convincing coming from one of them?

It's not "who" it comes from. It's that the evidence is not compelling enough to refute the creation of Genesis. Show me the evidence. Show me that evidence that PROVES without a shadow of a doubt that Genesis 1-11 is wrong. I don't want someone's "well because it is" proof. Keep it to yourself if that is all you have.

 

[TheOutsider]

It's not "who" it comes from. It's that the evidence is not compelling enough to refute the creation of Genesis. Show me the evidence. Show me that evidence that PROVES without a shadow of a doubt that Genesis 1-11 is wrong. I don't want someone's "well because it is" proof. Keep it to yourself if that is all you have.

I'm beginning to get the distinct feeling that even if Jesus himself came up to you and said "Yep, we did it all with evolution. Pretty neat trick, eh?" that you would still cling to your creationist beliefs. We are just wasting our time trying to explain things to you.

 

[Tomk80]

I'm beginning to get the distinct feeling that even if Jesus himself came up to you and said "Yep, we did it all with evolution. Pretty neat trick, eh?" that you would still cling to your creationist beliefs. We are just wasting our time trying to explain things to you.

Without wanting to put oil on to the flames, this question has actually been asked in a poll a while back. Both to evolutionists and creationists. Surprisingly (or not) some creationists actually answered that if God would come down to earth to tell them he created the earth through evolution, they would not believe it.

Honest, but weird nonetheless.

 

[The Bellman]

I find this is not even worthy of an attempt to answer because all you want to do is spue out insults and show your apparent ignorance of God, Christianity and the Bible.

You mean all I want to do is disagree with you - which, in your mind, equates to disagreeing with god. Sorry, but you're not god. Your beliefs may be incorrect. You do not have authority to decide who is Christian and who is not; you do not have authority to determine what is the correct interpretation of the bible.

I haven't found sufficient evidence here because you haven't given any.

I haven't tried to give any, because I know there's no point. If you are sincere about the issue, you'll get the facts from actual science sources, which would be far better than me. If you are (as I suspect) not sincere about the issue, you won't bother to consult actual science sources, and nothing I could say would persuade you. I'm not interested in casting pearls before swine.

But you are definitly in character with most atheists ..... doing what they love to do even more than promoting evolution .... bashing those who do not hold your point of view

Sweeping, false and insulting generalisation noted.

 

[Tomk80]

As for the degeneration of the genome, that requires the prior supposition that we were originally perfect and are getting less perfect all the time = bad science.
So there is again no conclusive evidence to refute evolution by natural selection which not only explains genetic difference, it predicted it 100 years before genetic testing.

If you remove your prior assumptions your arguments are not conclusive or supported by any known facts.
I'm sorry, but whoever put these ideas into your head was deliberately trying to mislead you.

To go further on this, from mathematical modeling we know that even deleterious mutations can increase in frequency in a population randomly, as long as the selective pressure that such a mutation is not too strong.

A hypothetical example can help here. If someone has a mutation causing him or her to die before he can get children (to take an extreme example, spina bifida), this mutation will immediately be removed from the population again. Although it will not be completely removed from the population, it will not occur in a higher frequency than the mutation occurs, because the mutation will never be passed on to a subsequent generation.

However, if the mutation has only a slight deleterious effect or a deleterious effect that only shows itself after the person has produced offspring (for example a mutation causing a higher risk of prostate cancer),the offspring of the carrier of this mutation will also have this mutation. This way, as long as the detrimental effects of the mutation are small enough, the mutation can increase in the population over time, basically following a random walk, just as neutral mutations do.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I was but making reference to your name Wiccan-"Child". I was wondering if we were to take that literal or not so I referred to the definition of "Child". I was merely pointing out the foolishness of your argument.

Ah, I see. No, I have no idea why I picked the name I did. Obviously the 'Wiccan' part refers to my faith, but 'Wiccan_Child'? No idea.
But suffice to say, I am neither pre-pubescent, nor childish/immature. Dictionaries are all well and good, but literalism leads to contradictions and illogical absolutes (as your example with my name aptly showed).
The 'Child' in my name is not literal, but rather it is metaphorical for one who is learning.

I would say that long ago the rules of no-flaming had been broken in this thread.

Perhaps, but this does not justify flaming (though I concede now that you were not).

Why is it that you all can dish it out but you cannot take it.

Quote me flaming you, and I'll concede your point. Otherwise, respond to my post: taking 'Jesus is a door' literally requires one to believe that Jesus is a hinged wall. Taking 'Jesus is a door' metaphorically allows one to believe that Jesus is a 'means to an end', as it were.

 

[BigDug]

No, you have ignored the uestipon completely, so I will elaborate.
Caina and able married - did they marry their sister?
Or their daughters?
There was only adam and eve - no other couples to have children, so they either had sex with their mother and married their own daughters or they married their sisters.
If god had chosen to create two wives for them (as I am sure you will answer) then why is this not mentioned?
This is special creation after all, a monumentous event.
If he did this, he doubled the number of perfect humans on the earth - must be worth a side-note at least.

No, I thought I made it clear that it was the sisters. Judging by your misunderstanding of what I said there and your wrong prediction of what I would say I am probably safe to assume that your going to misunderstand 90% of everything I say.

I think were are probably thinking on two different planes here.

The assertion is this: if we and chimpanzees have the same redunant genes at the same points in our genome, it is conclusive evidence of a common ancestor.

Thats pretty plain English, and I would tentatively agree that it is evidence. However there are still numerous questions I would have:

1)How do we know that these species you listed, the

possibly Sahelanthropus tchadensis (7–6 mya) and Orrorin tugenensis (6 mya),

would have had this gene duplication? You said yourself the evidence was scarce, how scarce? Can you point me in the direction of a link or other document that might tell me about the evidence, however scarce I am interested in why you would think these species had the aforementioned gene redundancy. It seems to me that given the links you provided (thanks BTW) that any information AT ALL would be scarce about these fossils, let alone the substance of their dna.

2)

this figure comes from analysis of the small differences in the redundant genes due to average mutation rate

OK, but there are a number of sub-questions here. First you had stated that gene redundancy would arise from transcription errors and not be related to mutation. Now you are talking about mutation rates.

Second I would wonder what numbers you are referring to. I am interested in hearing some information about mutation rates in the genome for the last 6 or 7 million years.

Once again, I'm not being facetious or over-analytical here. Obviously if you are going to have a hypothesis it is going to be right or wrong based on a)the experimentation result or b)the correctness of that particular experiment. In other words I would tend to check not only the results, but also the methods used to obtain the results.

2.5) Is there more mammals with this gene redundancy? All questions that would need to be answered before the assertion made was justifiably acceptable.

3)

No, redundant genes are rarely caused by mutation.
This pathway would require the operon (an on/off switch for the gene) to be mutated, which would render the lot unusable.

Here it seems like your saying that redundant genes are not caused by mutation but the operon would be mutated. That seems like a major contradiction to me. I must be reading it wrong.

4)

these can originate as an error in DNA copying.

So I think your saying that the genes were duplicated originally by a copying error but were allowed to stay in the gene pool through the mutation of an operon.

5)

What is striking about Hb is that the copies are found in different locations, different chromosomes in fact.

Id also like to see the research link on this, because I am assuming that for your assertion to be correct, the gene redundancies must reside on the same exact places on humans, chimps, and bonobos. This would be new to me. Please provide the links on this if you get the time, or at least show where you had heard or read it.

Out of interest, Myoglobin (the molecule which allows our muscles to handle oxygen transfer so efficiently) is a direct relative of Hb, and we have more than one active functional Hb gene, stanard haemoglobin is made from two alpha and two beta chains. There is also zeta, which is found in embryos.
But it is evidence for us to look at and track down our origins.

Sorry, I'm not seeing the connection here, what do you mean that Myoglobin is a relative of Hemoglobin? And what is the point of interest, ..that it exists? I suppose that fact is in itself interesting, ..if thats what you were in fact referring to.

Thanks for your help, but i can't give you a comclusive argument without big words or links to evidence - and you made it clear that you want opinions in laymenss terms, not hard science. So I am stucjkbetween a rock and a hard place here really.

I think it is foolish of me to expect that everything is going to be crystal clear for me at the start, I just get frustrated with too many generalities. I think we are making some progress, please disregard my original wishes, as long as I can keep asking questions than there is no reason to believe that you are hiding ignorance behind big words, as people often do. Its not that Im having difficulty with scientific terms, its more or less difficulty with how your using those terms, my greatest challenge is trying to understand what you mean by your word choice. Basically I don't want to misunderstand anything you say, and thereby be arguing against a straw man. Thats why I would hope you would be a clear as possible. But never mind, as long as your open to questions than I suppose I'll figure out what your saying eventually.

Why do redundant genes exist? Good question, special creation certainly has no answer.

Why wouldn't special creation account for gene redundancy? There is nothing out of the ordinary about genes getting duplicated. As I said, the creation explanation would simply appeal to genetic entropy.

yet they can provide the raw material for new genes by mutation.

Theres no good genes being created by mutations, what ever gave you that idea?

One more change causes sickle cell anemia, good for resisting malaria, not good for normal modern life.

Case in point. Nothing is evolving as a result of mutation, theres just things escaping harm. No new functionality is coming from it.

There is no known mechanism that would account for the similarity in human and chimp DNA and special creation.

Why not? The chimp and human use a lot of the same design. As for genetic defects, I'm waiting for you to show that gene redundancy in the same exact places in the genomes of chimps and humans.

You have avoided the point. We have evolved a system to correct and protect against such problems, they arise because the original blueprint for cellular life is frought with problems - badly designed, if you like.
But it works long enough for us to reproduce and raise our offspring, and that's all it takes.
And again, i could have terminal cancer but i can still produce sperm which will not cause that cancer in my offspring, so the mutation per person analogy is misleading - they won't all be passed on!!!

Obviously I am talking about dna in germline cells, I think your the one trying to avoid the point.

I'm sorry, but whoever put these ideas into your head was deliberately trying to mislead you.

I don't think so, I dont mind explaining things to you peicemeal, as your obviously not believing me. Here is a link of the neutral theory of molecular evolution.

Basically the widespread abundance of mutations in the
genome has been a known fact in biology for decades. Its surprising that you wouldn't be aware of it.

After you read a little I'll show you some dispersion charts by Kimura and I can then begin to show you what is meant here by the theory Im trying to express here.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

3 : a means of access or participation : OPPORTUNITY <opens new doors> <door to success>

is a METAPHORICAL definition of door... not a literal one