Evolutionists Moving the Goalposts Again

[Gracchus]

YECist since the flood propose evolution works within kinds 10000 times faster than any modern science would predict..... just imagine.

Luckily, for some reason, it doesn't go that fast anymore.

 

[selfinflikted]

I would just like to point out that, as a lurker, I don't really post much (actually this is my first I believe) in this forum. Typically, I find this board very informative and sometimes mildly amusing, but I do not consider myself qualified to post anything new/meaningful that would add to the discussion. HOWEVER, this thread deserves a post from everone. This thread is SO rich, I can scarcely believe it with my own eye. I'm telling you, this thread is DESTINED for LEGENDARY status. Mark my words. And btw, supersport... I lol'ed irl. Really.

 

[gladiatrix]

http://www.psrast.org/junkdna.htm
95% of DNA does NOT code for protein!! How do you like them apples Tom and everyone else?

'One Gene One Trait' hasn't been accepted for quite some time. Something else that is taught in just about every college level biology or genetics class.
You are caught in some kind of late 60's, early 70's time warp or something.

Notto is right, a lot has been discovered about how genes are expressed in the past 30 years. Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with just the basics at the sites below (expression is different for the two basic types of cells, prokaryotic cells vs eukaryotic cells).

Control of Gene Expression
The Paradigm of Differential Gene Expression

This is an extraordinarily complex subject so it isn't possible to even begin to explain gene regulation here. There is more to consider about gene regulation that simply looking at genes that are actively transcribed (used to make proteins, RNAs). The whole genome is actually "tagged" with certain chemical "cues" that directly affect that expression. Here's an interesting article on that:

The Unseen Genome: Gems among the Junk

EXCERPT
The extent of this unseen genome is not yet clear, but at least two layers of information exist outside the traditionally recognized genes. [....]Above and beyond the DNA sequence there is another, much more malleable, layer of information in the chromosomes. "Epigenetic" marks, embedded in a melange of proteins and chemicals that surround, support and stick to DNA, operate through cryptic codes and mysterious machinery. Unlike genes, epigenetic marks are routinely laid down, erased and rewritten on the fly. So whereas mutations last a lifetime, epigenetic mistakes-implicated in a growing list of birth defects, cancers and other diseases-may be reversible with drugs. In fact, doctors are already testing such experimental treatments on leukemia patients.

What most people don't realize is that inheritance/gene expression is not just a case of "me Gene", "you Protein". The DNA is packaged and "tagged" with a number of proteins and chemicals that directely effect how these genes are expressed. Some of these "tags" are often sex-specific, i.e., males and females will have often methylate (add a CH[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE] "tag") the same alleles for a trait differently which will directly affect their expression. This kind of epigentic marking is called genomic imprinting.

The fact is there are TWO types of DNA inside of a nucleus. First, DNA in a chromosome is actually a complex of DNA and proteins called histones, generically called CHROMATIN. To find out more about the structure of chromatin use this link from Kimball Biology Pages On-line. Now why is this important? The way DNA is packaged dictates when or even if the genes within are transcribed (used to make proteins and RNA molecules). The two types of DNA are euchromatin and heterochromatin. Quoting/adapted from the Kimball link above:

Heterochromatin

• is found in parts of the chromosome where there are few or no genes,
  • such as centromeres and telomeres is densely-packed;
  • is greatly enriched with transposons and
  • other "junk" DNA (more on this below);
• is replicated late in S phase of the cell cycle;
• has reduced crossing over in meiosis.
• Those genes present in heterochromatin are generally inactive; that is, not transcribed and show
  • increased methylation of the cytosines in CpG islands of the DNA [Link];
  • decreased acetylation of histones and
  • increased methylation of lysine-9 in histone H3, which now provides a binding site for heterochromatin protein 1 (HP1), which blocks access by the transcription factors needed for gene transcription.

Euchromatin

• is found in parts of the chromosome that contain many genes.
• These are separated from adjacent heterochromatin by insulators. More on insulators
• The loops are often found near the nuclear pore complexes. (This would seem to make sense making it easier for the gene transcripts to get to the cytosol, but there is evidence that as gene transcription proceeds, the active DNA actually moves into the interior of the nucleus.)
• The genes in euchromatin are active and thus show
  • decreased methylation of the cytosines in CpG islands of the DNA [Link];
  • increased acetylation of histones and
  • decreased methylation of lysine-9 in histone H3.

What was previously called "junk DNA (JD)" may not be junk after all and also appears to play a role in gene expression.The question is not that "junk DNA" isn't "useful", but HOW useful is it .....The phrase "junk DNA"(JD) was coined to describe all DNA that did not code for proteins or RNAs used by the host. This phrase is proving to be something of a MISNOMER.

It DOES NOT necessarily mean useless DNA. While this DNA may not code for host proteins and RNAs, it does appear that it may indeed have a number of "functions" within the cell.

• 1. JD acts as a regulator of gene expression during development (Ex. embryogenesis)
• 2. JD may serve as enhancers for the transcription of nearby genes.
• 3. Acting as a "double-edged" genetic regulator, JD can also function as "silencers" (in contrast to enhancers that up-regulate transcription) for suppression the transciption of proximal genes. Some of this DNA actually appears to be highly conserved between groups of related species:

  From Junk Throws up Precious Secret Researchers inspecting the genetic code of rats, mice and humans were surprised to find they shared many identical chunks of apparently "junk" DNA.
  [*]
  This implies the code is so vital that even 75 million years of evolution in these mammals could not tinker with it.
  [*]
  But what the DNA does, and how, is a puzzle, the journal Science reports.
  . . . .
  The regions largely matched up with chicken, dog and fish sequences, too; but are absent from sea squirt and fruit flies. (NOTE: We wouldn't expect to find such conserved sequences in organisms so far removed from the vertebrates mentioned)
  . . . .
  The really interesting thing is that many of these "ultra-conserved" regions do not appear to code for protein. If it was not for the fact that they popped up in so many different species, they might have been dismissed as useless "padding".
  We know this because ever since rodents, humans, chickens and fish shared an ancestor - about 400 million years ago - these sequences have resisted change. This strongly suggests that any alteration would have damaged the animals' ability to survive.
  [*]
  "These initial findings tell us quite a lot of the genome was doing something important other than coding for proteins," Professor Haussler said. He thinks the most likely scenario is that they control the activity of indispensable genes and embryo development.
  [*]
  Nearly a quarter of the sequences overlap with genes and may help slice RNA - the chemical cousin of DNA involved in protein production - into different forms, Professor Haussler believes.
  The conserved elements that do not actually overlap with genes tend to cluster next to genes that play a role in embryonic development.
  "The fact that the conserved elements are hanging around the most important development genes, suggests they have some role in regulating the process of development and differentiation," said Professor Haussler.

  JD may play a role in regulating translation of proteins
• 4. JD can also be used to create new sequences that generate new proteins. Guess what that is, superport, it’s called EVOLUTION!

  From “Junk DNA” Creates Novel Proteins
  DNA sequences long considered genomic garbage are finally getting a little respect. Researchers have figured out how short stretches of DNA that do not normally code for proteins worm their way into genes.
  [*]
  This can result in the production of abnormal proteins and lead to genetic diseases, such as Alport Syndrome, a rare kidney disease. But the sequences, sometimes called “junk DNA,” have also allowed humans and other species to create new proteins in a process that has dramatically influenced evolution.
  [*]
  Gil Ast and his colleagues at Tel Aviv University in Israel have figured out how the sequences, known as Alu elements, are incorporated into genes to create novel proteins. More than 300,000 sequences are poised for insertion into genes—all that’s needed is a single mutation.
  
  Through a process called alternative splicing, humans create multiple versions of a gene and, consequently, multiple proteins. It’s a way of constructing a new protein, while keeping a backup copy of the original version.

Just "WHAT" is "junk DNA"? It is composed of:

• 1. Introns (For an interesting twist on how introns can be "used" read about Inteins or "protein introns"
• 2. Pseudogenes
• 3. Nearly half of this "junk" DNA is parasitic or "selfish" DNA. These mobile elements are DNA sequences that possess coding sequences that facilitate their ability to copy and/or transfer themselves to different regions of the hosts genome. These mobile element specific sequences doesn't code for host proteins that will ever become part of the host tissue or perform a cellular function.
• • a. Transposable elements(TEs)
  • b. Retrotransposons/retroposons.
  • c. More detailed descriptions of the mobile elements go HERE and HERE

These pseudogenes and mobile elements (which also acquire mutations) accumulate over time and have characteristic patterns that can be used to trace lineages.


I haven't even scratched the surface about what is currently known about gene expression.

That is what Tom, notto, Gracchus and others (kudos to you all for your patience with supersport’s antics), have been trying to tell you. It’s all about EXPRESSION of a particular gene or set of genes.

Let me give you an example. Suppose a woman is pregnant, BUT she’s an alcoholic. The alcohol is going to interfere with when and how certain genes affecting intelligence, etc. are expressed and result in the following defects “brain damage, facial deformities, and growth deficits. Heart, liver, and kidney defects also are common, as well as vision and hearing problems. Individuals with FAS (fetal alcohol syndrome) have difficulties with learning, attention, memory, and problem solving.” The degree to which the developing embryo/fetus is affected depends on when the mother starts drinking and how much she drinks.

Second example of how elements in the environment can affect expression is to take the simple case of flower color in some species of hydrangeas. If they can take up aluminum from the soil, then their flowers will be blue or pink depending on how much they take up. Raising the pH of the soil will slow the uptake of the aluminum and result in pink flowers, whereas, lowering the pH of the soil will enable the plant to take up more, producing blue flowers. The genes coding for pigmentation in a plant with pink or blue flowers is the SAME, but the presence of the aluminum is going to modify the pigment, resulting in different colors.

Third example…Let’s take height. One of Jack the Ripper’s victims, a prostitute Elizabeth Stride was known as “Long Liz” because of her height. How tall do you think she was? I ask my students this and most will opine that she was probably 6 feet tall or taller. The fact is that she was only 5’ 2’’ tall. However, this made her nearly half a foot taller than most women in Victorian London who averaged 4’ 9” tall. In the UK now, the average height for a woman is a little over 5’3-4”. Have their genes “mutated” so that women in the UK are taller? NO! It’s has more to do with nutrition. IOW, it doesn’t matter how many “tall genes” you inherit from your parents, IF you don’t get adequate nutrition at the appropriate time, you will not develop to the height dictated by those genes. Height is also going to be affected by a number of other environmental factors, not just nutrition, but adequate nutrition is crucial.

What you apparently have no conception of here is what genes are or anything about how they are expressed and hence don’t know the difference between the effect of a mutation versus the range of gene expression (the “plasticity” factor) which is often dictated by elements in the environment (both pre-natal and post-natal).

 

[supersport]

See what you evolutionists don't get is this:

You guys Dogma requires that you acknowledge that DNA is the govenor and dictator of life and inheitance for the organism. Your dogma proclaims that DNA reproduces itself and produces proteins....proteins, however are not able to reproduce themselves and are unable to modify the DNA that encoded them. To put it differently, the information proceeds from DNA to proteins, but it never makes the return trip from proteins to DNA. Your theory ignores the fact that proteins could have any effects on DNA.....the egg makes the chicken, but the chicken doesn't turn around and make the egg.

The fact is....DNA is not the starting point of anything. DNA is merely the body's tool that is being used. The body merely SELECTS which DNA to implement.

The fact is, it's not the genetic code that makes up the difference between a mouse and a fly...it's merely how the genes are expressed -- this puts the death nail in the coffin of Darwinism.

 

[Nathan Poe]

See what you evolutionists don't get is this:

You guys Dogma requires that you acknowledge that DNA is the govenor and dictator of life and inheitance for the organism. Your dogma proclaims that DNA reproduces itself and produces proteins....proteins, however are not able to reproduce themselves and are unable to modify the DNA that encoded them. To put it differently, the information proceeds from DNA to proteins, but it never makes the return trip from proteins to DNA. Your theory ignores the fact that proteins could have any effects on DNA.....the egg makes the chicken, but the chicken doesn't turn around and make the egg.

The fact is....DNA is not the starting point of anything. DNA is merely the body's tool that is being used. The body merely SELECTS which DNA to implement.

The fact is, it's not the genetic code that makes up the difference between a mouse and a fly...it's merely how the genes are expressed -- this puts the death nail in the coffin of Darwinism.

You really don't understand a word of any of this, do you?

 

[Mincus]

See what you evolutionists don't get is this:

You guys Dogma requires that you acknowledge that DNA is the govenor and dictator of life and inheitance for the organism. Your dogma proclaims that DNA reproduces itself and produces proteins....proteins, however are not able to reproduce themselves and are unable to modify the DNA that encoded them. To put it differently, the information proceeds from DNA to proteins, but it never makes the return trip from proteins to DNA. Your theory ignores the fact that proteins could have any effects on DNA.....the egg makes the chicken, but the chicken doesn't turn around and make the egg.

The fact is....DNA is not the starting point of anything. DNA is merely the body's tool that is being used. The body merely SELECTS which DNA to implement.

The fact is, it's not the genetic code that makes up the difference between a mouse and a fly...it's merely how the genes are expressed -- this puts the death nail in the coffin of Darwinism.

Well done for yet another post that demonstrates just how little you've considered people's feedback!

 

[supersport]

You really don't understand a word of any of this, do you?

try me....I understand just enough to be dangerous. The fact is darwinists think that DNA is isolated in its own little cocoon -- in total isolation from internal or external pressures. To them, DNA IS God....in reality, though, it's merely a tool that the body uses to express who it is and from what it came from.

Would you mind telling me how cat genes are expressed differently than mouse genes?

 

[Electric Skeptic]

try me....I understand just enough to be dangerous.

Dangerous? To whom? Yourself? Certainly not to science in general or evolutionary theory in particular. Nothing you have said is any sort of threat to anything to do with evolution.

 

[supersport]

Dangerous? To whom? Yourself? Certainly not to science in general or evolutionary theory in particular. Nothing you have said is any sort of threat to anything to do with evolution.

that's because whatever I say cannot effect the figment that's in your imagination. I would never claim to be that powerful. S

 

[Electric Skeptic]

that's because whatever I say cannot effect the figment that's in your imagination. I would never claim to be that powerful. S

No, it's because nothing you say regarding evolution is accurate.

 

[supersport]

No, it's because nothing you say regarding evolution is accurate.

what you mean to say is that nothing I say is relevent to the figment in your imagination. However, what I say is relevent to real life.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The fact is darwinists think that DNA is isolated in its own little cocoon -- in total isolation from internal or external pressures.


nonsense.
mutations are attributed to high energy ionizing radiation, external mutagens and such.
those things causing mutations are almost all external to DNA and most likely to the cell as well.


there is a lot of research being done into the controlling features of DNA, regulatory regions, RNA and protein transcription factors, physical binders like the histones and the quantery structure they impose on DNA.
DNA is embedded in a system, nowhere do i see the system being ignored by the TofE. rather much work is being done on how the system works.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

what you mean to say is that nothing I say is relevent to the figment in your imagination. However, what I say is relevent to real life.

No, nothing you say is accurate. You don't understand the difference between 'accurate' and 'relevant'? The 'facts' you post are constantly corrected; what you say is FALSE.

 

[shadowmage36]

Even when mountains of evidence to the contrary are placed right in front of you, your complete and utter stubbornness to even think for a moment that you might possibly be wrong prevent you from considering it.

Are you really so blind to reality?

If so, you have my pity. Such an existence I would wish on no one.

 

[notto]

See what you evolutionists don't get is this:

You guys Dogma requires that you acknowledge that DNA is the govenor and dictator of life and inheitance for the organism. Your dogma proclaims that DNA reproduces itself and produces proteins....proteins, however are not able to reproduce themselves and are unable to modify the DNA that encoded them. To put it differently, the information proceeds from DNA to proteins, but it never makes the return trip from proteins to DNA. Your theory ignores the fact that proteins could have any effects on DNA.....the egg makes the chicken, but the chicken doesn't turn around and make the egg.

The fact is....DNA is not the starting point of anything. DNA is merely the body's tool that is being used. The body merely SELECTS which DNA to implement.

The fact is, it's not the genetic code that makes up the difference between a mouse and a fly...it's merely how the genes are expressed -- this puts the death nail in the coffin of Darwinism.

Can you describe to us in your own words the process and mechanisms that make proteins in the body?

If you can, it might actually show that we should listen to you as someone who might have a credible contribution. If you can't, it just shows that you are making this up as you go along and apparently really don't know wha the heck you are talking about..

Can you?

 

[Tomk80]

what you mean to say is that nothing I say is relevent to the figment in your imagination. However, what I say is relevent to real life.

No, we really only mean that you do not understand genetics, nor do you understand evolution, and that your ignorance in these subject makes you look like a fool.

 

[LightHorseman]

"Would you mind telling me how cat genes are expressed differently than mouse genes?"

Simple. Cat DNA codes for cat proteins, mouse DNA codes for mouse proteins.

As for proteins not being able to reproduce... um, DNA, RNA, and prions ALL reproduce themselves, and guess what? They are ALL proteins. No one says that all proteins can reproduce, but the fact that some can is enough to get natural selection rolling. I further refer you to Gladiatrix'excellent post

 

[gladiatrix]

You guys Dogma requires that you acknowledge that DNA is the govenor and dictator of life and inheitance for the organism. Your dogma proclaims that DNA reproduces itself and produces proteins

No it doesn't "say that". DNA contains the information that will eventually be turned into a protein, but it doesn't make protein itself. The gene for a protein is copied into a disposable message, m-RNA in a process known as TRANSCRIPTION. This disposable copy of the gene is then used as a template and copied numerous times by the cellular mechinery into protein (TRANSLATION)

Here are some links with simple animations on how these work :
1. TRANSCRIPTION ANIMATION

2. TRANSLATION ANIMATION

3. Here is an index with a number of Windows Media movies on transcription, translation and the Lac Operon (which you also don't seem to understand either). The links are given in a window on the left-side of the screen.

4. Discussion of these processes from Kimball Biology

....proteins, however are not able to reproduce themselves and are unable to modify the DNA that encoded them. To put it differently, the information proceeds from DNA to proteins, but it never makes the return trip from proteins to DNA.

WHY would there be any reason for proteins to make a "return trip from proteins to DNA"? That's not the way cells "do business". It's DNA==> m-RNA ==> protein. There's no reverse process known. What's your point?

Some viruses that use RNA as their genetic code will go this route: RNA ==>DNA==>mRNA ==> proteins Link to Johns Hopkins site with animation for life cycle of HIV virus

BTW, you are quite wrong that proteins don't modify the DNA because they do. There are proteins that "tag" DNA. Some chemical tags can result in genes NOT being used. Others tell the cell that these genes should be used and when. Obviously you didn't read a bit of my Post #384 which links to discussions on this very subject.

Your theory ignores the fact that proteins could have any effects on DNA.....the egg makes the chicken, but the chicken doesn't turn around and make the egg.

The fact is....DNA is not the starting point of anything. DNA is merely the body's tool that is being used. The body merely SELECTS which DNA to implement.

No, there's no conscious "selection" by the body (whatever that means). There's no "intelligence" that does the "selecting". Earlier you posted this deceptive little quote-mine (I can see why you are so clueless).

In Post #70

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf060/sf060p07.htm
One seemingly unassailable dogma of evolutionary biology insists that natural selection involves, first, the continuous, random, environment-independent generation of genetic mutations; and, second, the subsequent fixation of those mutations that are favored by prevailing conditions. In other works, the genetic mutations cannot be influenced by external events and conditions. But in recent experiments with bacteria (E. coli), J. Cairns et al, at the Harvard School of Public Health, find they actually do produce mutations in direct response to changes in their environment. The adjective "purposeful" has even been applied to the action of these bacteria! Can anything be more heretical?

The problem with this is that it was plucked from a one-page OPINION which SPECULATES on possible scenarios that MIGHT be used by bacteria. First, opinion pages aren't evidence for anything, especially ones that are now nearly 20 years old. I can't give a direct link to the pdf file from Science (you would need a subscription to view this reference ==>R Lewin. A heresy in evolutionary biology. Science 16 September 1988 241: 1431 [DOI: 10.1126/science.3047870] )
Here are some of the SPECULATIVE mechanism proposed by Cairns:

Cairns and his colleague speculate on a mechanism by which mutation might be directed by external circumstances. Suppose, as a result of sloppy transcription, an organism makes a variable set of messenger RNAs from any one of its genes; and suppose the organism is equipped to test the efficacy of the different protein variants produced; it then selects the best messenger for continued translation and at the same time, using reverse transcriptase, makes a DNA copy, which is slotted into the genome. The result would be a mutant produced as a consequence of the environment to which the organism was exposed. If such a system were to exist "you would expect it to become widespread, because the organisms carrying it would be so successful," says Hall.

As it happens, NONE of these "what ifs" and "supposes" panned out. Here's some passages from pages 28-30 HERE (pdf) about Cairns:

Are spontaneous mutations targeted? We can rationalize how and why mutation rates might be dependent on growth conditions, but it has also been proposed that there might be situations where not only are mutations rates increased, but the mutations are targeted to regions of the genome in which advantageous mutations might be created. The initial notion involved the ebg story of Cairns (Nat335:142[88]) and a similar argument, based on a rather different assay, was made by Hall (Genet120:887[88]). In each case, the claim was not greatly different from what was described in the immediately preceding section, though mechanisms were not obvious at that time.

The Cairns paper also alluded to the more radical issue of mutations being targeted to specific regions, as did another paper (Genet126:5[90]). Models for this very radical notion are discussed at some length in Genet126:5[90] and included: reverse transcriptase (though probably not a major factor in bacteria), targeted failure-to-repair, and targeted mutation generation. The generally accepted term for this class of mutations was “adaptive.” Now, I am skipping a few of the ugly details here, because at least some of the original Cairn’s phenomenon happened to depend on the fact that the genes were on a plasmids (?!?!) and it is clear that there are several different possibilities at play. However, I don’t believe that there was ever a particularly compelling model on how mutations would be targeted to specific regions. For those interested in the general issue, the following references should bring you up to date: (JBact182:2993[00], JBact179:1550[97], EMBOJ16:3303[97], Genet148:1453[98], Genet148:1559[98], Genet154:1427[00]).

More recently, another hypothesis to explain the possibility of targeting phenomenon has been proposed. This model notes that the original mutation used in the Cairns experiments was a leaky frameshift and proposes that duplication/amplification of this region increased the level of functional product in the cell, supporting some growth. The amplification necessarily resulted in homologous recombination, which in turn induced the SOS response, leading to general mutagenesis (Genet161:945[02]). This simpler hypothesis seems completely compatible with the available data on the phenomenon and has the charm of not requiring the invocation of new regulated mechanisms for transient mutagenesis of portions of a bacterial population.

Now like many hypotheses proposed by scientists, the notion of "adapative" mutations as proposed by Cairns didn't work out. The point here is that his ideas have been discussed and experimented on in full measure and in the open.

Here's a discussion of the issues raised by Cairns at TalkReason. What is very dishonest, supersport, is for you to present quote-mines like this one that are not only OUT-OF-DATE and SUPERSEDED, i.e., Cairn's "Lamarckian" speculations about "directed" mutation didn't work out), but imply that there's some kind of cover-up of the facts as well.

As a further demonstration of either your ignorance and/or dishonest, it should be noted that even Cairns disavowed "directed" spontaneous mutation for multicellular organisms. Cairns also pointed out that which such scenarios MIGHT be possible for prokaryotes like bacteria, the same thing could NOT be said of multicellular organisms, again quoting from the opinion page:

From the Lewin piece:
But would it operate in multicellular organisms, thus underpinning the notion of inheritance of acquired characteristics? Probably not, guesses Hall, at least not beyond a very limited extent. The reason is because in bacteria there can be very rapid feedback between exposure to a new environment, expression of a favorable protein, and permanent genetic change: it is a feedback between chemicals in the environment and enzymes required to process them. In multicellular organisms, where the process of embryological development interposes itself between expression of the genetic blueprint and the mature, anatomically complex organism, the potential for feedback is snapped, except perhaps for the simplest of physiological systems. In addition, of course, the germline is effectively isolated from the cells in the rest of the organism. Nevertheless, cautions Cairns, "we shouldn't be thinking about multicellular organisms

There doesn't look like there's any mechanism for animals like the Arctic fox or any other multicellular organism to simply break out their DNA at will and generate the needed proteins on "demand" in the manner you have been flogging here.

The fact is, it's not the genetic code that makes up the difference between a mouse and a fly

Wrong, there's quite a bit of difference between the DNA of a mouse and a fly. What we have found sequencing the genomes of organisms is that it the difference between a mouse and a fly does NOT require a VAST difference between their respective codes to produce the differences observed. This is actually a boost for evolution where different functions have been shown to arise from either small alterations in pre-existing genes and/or differential expressions of similar sequences.

...it's merely how the genes are expressed -- this puts the death nail in the coffin of Darwinism.

Now the above is an assertion that you have YET to present any data to support. There is nothing about differential expression that falsifies any aspect of ToE. Do tell us WHY differential expression would "put the death nail in the coffin of Darwinism".

 

[JohnR7]

If you can, it might actually show that we should listen to you as someone who might have a credible contribution. If you can't, it just shows that you are making this up as you go along and apparently really don't know wha the heck you are talking about..

Who are you trying to kid? You only listen to what agrees with your preconceived beliefs and you reject anything that conflicts with your preconceived belief system.

Christians may do the same thing. But that does not change the prejudice that science has against Creationism that causes them to discredit it with any means possible. They do not want to admit how substantial a lot of creation science is.

I know that there are people who claim to be christian and evolutionists. But a lot of evolutionary theory and belief dishonors christianity.

We know that there will be a falling way from the truth, what is called the great apostasy. We know from our Bible that there is a dead, harlot apostate church out there. So we want to make sure that we are a part of the true church of Christ and not the false one.

My point is that I have to wonder about the people who attack and try to falsely discredit Creation Science.

Rev. 3:1
"And to the angel of the church in Sardis write,
'These things says He who has the seven Spirits of God and the seven stars:
"I know your works, that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead.

 

[JohnR7]

"put the death nail in the coffin of Darwinism".

What is Darwinism other then the theory of Natural Selection?

Natural Selection requires something to select. Darwin never resolved this issue and they still have not resolved it today. Other than to offer up their lame and unproven mutation theory. Perhaps they can show a benificial mutation, but where have they shown evolution as a result of a benificial mutation?

You can join as many theorys together as you want. But just because you can join them. Does not make it right. But what about chemicals? You can only join them the way they want to be joined. Does that make it "right" if your able to join chemicals together?