- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,030
- 7,265
- 62
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
This is actually an excerpt from a formal debate I had a while ago. Thought the creationists on here might get something out of it:
We were actually discussing ERVs, Darwinians believe that 8% of the human genome is the result of germline viral invasions. I find this absurd in the extreme but a lot of evolutionists seem to like it. Bottom line, Darwinians rely entirely too much on random mutations. This is estimated to have happened about 25 million years ago which is where every major taxon of primates start. That mean in addition to viral germline invasions there was adaptive evolution going on at an unprecedented rate. Such a busy, busy time for the genomes of our ancestors.
Grace and peace,
Mark
Evolution is defined scientifically as the change of alleles in populations over time. Darwinism is the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means. The most common and persuasive argument for common descent the Darwinian has is homology or things the two lineages have in common, especially things that are identical. Homology arguments have been the cornerstone of Darwinian logic since Huxley (Darwin's bulldog) first started attacking the concept of creation. For a long time I found these arguments highly persuasive and regarded them as profoundly empirical until I discovered that the Achilles' heel of Darwinian logic was the role of mutations in their scenario of natural history.
When the comparison of Chimpanzee and Human genomes was published back in the fall of 2005 there were 2 primary differences identified. Single base substitutions where a single base pair (GT-guanine-cytosine and AT adenine-thymine) are switched and indels (insertions/deletions) which is any section that is present in one genome but absent in the other. We have been told since the advent of the DNA double helix model that after meticulous and determined searches scientists could find no more then 1% of the DNA in Humans and Chimpanzees were different. When it comes to single base substitutions that's true but with the inclusion of indels (aka gaps) the divergence jumps to 4%. After this was determined beyond all skepticism Darwinians, even reputable scientists, continued to tell us that we were 98% the same as Chimpanzees in our DNA. The reason for this is mutations.
Most of the time when a mutation occurs in the DNA it's neutral (does nothing), the vast majority of the time when it has an effect it's deleterious (harmful). The main cause of mutations is copy errors and there are quality control checks and DNA repair mechanisms throughout the life cycle of the cell that prevent the vast majority of them from getting though. When they do manage to get by the quality control checks natural selection eliminates them through the death of the carrier. In order for a mutation to be permanently fixed and passed on from one generation to another it has to be present in the germline cells. This is the last place you would want to have a mutation, it is no where more dangerous to the offspring.
When they compared the protein coding genes they found that only 29% were identical, on average having one different codon in each lineage. Given the devastating effects of frameshifts on protein coding genes, the odds of a single mutation in a protein coding gene are themselves astronomical. When you have it happen in over 70% of the protein coding genes with one substitution per lineage, we are talking astronomically unlikely in two related species.
Mutations are rare enough given the high degree of fidelity in the reproduction of DNA during the cell cycle reproduction. Those effecting fitness would be even more rare, since they are profoundly dangerous to the health of the genome and host organism. The rarest of all would be those that have a beneficial effect and even those, come with a high cost to establish them as permanent part of the genome. These facts of evolutionary biology and genetics make Darwinian logic untenable, unreasonable and absolutely impossible. The tragic fact is that despite this obvious and glaring flaw in Darwinian logic, universal common descent can never be and is never questioned.
When the comparison of Chimpanzee and Human genomes was published back in the fall of 2005 there were 2 primary differences identified. Single base substitutions where a single base pair (GT-guanine-cytosine and AT adenine-thymine) are switched and indels (insertions/deletions) which is any section that is present in one genome but absent in the other. We have been told since the advent of the DNA double helix model that after meticulous and determined searches scientists could find no more then 1% of the DNA in Humans and Chimpanzees were different. When it comes to single base substitutions that's true but with the inclusion of indels (aka gaps) the divergence jumps to 4%. After this was determined beyond all skepticism Darwinians, even reputable scientists, continued to tell us that we were 98% the same as Chimpanzees in our DNA. The reason for this is mutations.
Most of the time when a mutation occurs in the DNA it's neutral (does nothing), the vast majority of the time when it has an effect it's deleterious (harmful). The main cause of mutations is copy errors and there are quality control checks and DNA repair mechanisms throughout the life cycle of the cell that prevent the vast majority of them from getting though. When they do manage to get by the quality control checks natural selection eliminates them through the death of the carrier. In order for a mutation to be permanently fixed and passed on from one generation to another it has to be present in the germline cells. This is the last place you would want to have a mutation, it is no where more dangerous to the offspring.
When they compared the protein coding genes they found that only 29% were identical, on average having one different codon in each lineage. Given the devastating effects of frameshifts on protein coding genes, the odds of a single mutation in a protein coding gene are themselves astronomical. When you have it happen in over 70% of the protein coding genes with one substitution per lineage, we are talking astronomically unlikely in two related species.
Mutations are rare enough given the high degree of fidelity in the reproduction of DNA during the cell cycle reproduction. Those effecting fitness would be even more rare, since they are profoundly dangerous to the health of the genome and host organism. The rarest of all would be those that have a beneficial effect and even those, come with a high cost to establish them as permanent part of the genome. These facts of evolutionary biology and genetics make Darwinian logic untenable, unreasonable and absolutely impossible. The tragic fact is that despite this obvious and glaring flaw in Darwinian logic, universal common descent can never be and is never questioned.
We were actually discussing ERVs, Darwinians believe that 8% of the human genome is the result of germline viral invasions. I find this absurd in the extreme but a lot of evolutionists seem to like it. Bottom line, Darwinians rely entirely too much on random mutations. This is estimated to have happened about 25 million years ago which is where every major taxon of primates start. That mean in addition to viral germline invasions there was adaptive evolution going on at an unprecedented rate. Such a busy, busy time for the genomes of our ancestors.
Grace and peace,
Mark
