The lie of evolution

Is your son a programmer for IBM? There's a big difference between being able to open a game of FreeCell and being able to code a computer program.

The "fancy language" used in various specialities is not used so that people won't have a clue what we're talking about, it's used because common language doesn't have a word for a certain concept. The only other alternative is to stick in a couple of paragraphs explaining which concept you're talking about every time you need to discuss something, and that would just be silly if the concepts are common knowledge among the group. I'm sure that you would probably be able to understand most of this stuff if it was all explained to you. However, right now your understanding of genetics is very shallow, yet you seem to think that you are capable of determining what types of evolution could and could not occur. The fact remains, you did not know either the term or the concept of somatic hypermutation before I explained it to you. I doubt you know either the term or the concept of imprinting, Robertsonian fusion, Muller's ratchet, retrotransposon, or paracentric inversion, just to list a few. There's a reason people spend years studying these things--and it's not so they have time to memorize the vocabulary lists.

As for your source--same old same old. UTEOTW has demonstrated many times mechanisms for addition of new information to a genome, and I have demonstrated that mutation is not inherently bad. That slays the first portion ("Mutations - Evolution's Raw Material").

This paragraph makes me want to dress up in sackcloth and go wailing up and down the streets:

So they're saying that the entirely novel plasmids cooked up my mutation and natural selection is an invalid example of evolution simply because bacteria are known to undergo conjugation??? Yeah, they strung that straw man up on the gibbet. That's like my saying that your child born with the first CCR5 mutation isn't novel because the child is the result of sexual reproduction. Completely irrelevant!

And we have more mis-use of Gould's name. Here's a flower for his grave.

As for examples of genes that were added new to our genomes and not present in apes:

A Vk immunoglobulin gene
Three salivary amylase genes--one is present in chimpanzees, the other two came about via duplication of the first.
Immunoglobulin receptor genes FCGR1A, FCGR1B, FCGRIC from an ancestral Fcgr 1 gene.

Of course I'm sure you will disregard these examples since you weren't there to see them happen. Considering they happen once in multiple millions of years, it's kind of asking a lot to demand to be there right at that moment. Yet the fact that we don't see oodles of new genes popping into existence around us is supposed to be evidence against evolution--when evolution doesn't claim that they are anyways.

Then there are the frogs, which make a huge variety of short antimicrobial peptides. These are problematic for YE-ers who believe in modification of original kinds without additon of new genes because there is such a variety down even to the species level that explaining each as the offspring of an original kind would require making practically every species of frog an original kind, once again demonstrating the arbitrariness of the "kind" designation.

But I have yet to receive a clear answer from you--do you now think that mutation is not necessarily detrimental and that mutation can lead to increase in specificity?

 

Boy, this is some kind of a jump in logic to come up with the above statement from the following statement.

(At least I surmise that this quote fueled the above 1st quote.) </font>[/QUOTE]What kind of relevance does Dr. Watson or Dr. Crick's spiritual condition have to do with their contribution to science? The implication was that their findings were worthless since they weren't Christians. If JWI had not been emotionally carried away I'm sure he would not have made such a senseless statement.

 

If I may drop my penny in the poor man's hat,

I know nothing of science, while I know a bit of the Bible, but God did give me a bit of thinking cells. Now the Bible says "in the beginnng, God ..." Nothing besides Him existed which implies He must have put anything that now is there besides Him, there Himself. He created - is, the sole Creator.
His being Creator implies He has to be omni-potent - Almighty. Everything and anything in His own will is possible for God to do. So He needed and still needs nothing to accomplish His own council.
I have NO REASON therefore, to doubt His Word, when He says, "In six days God made ..." simply, "ALL"! God didn't need, 'time' - in fact, 'time' is a resultant of 'space', which is a resultant of locality, of matter: conglomerates of created things.
God said - and CLAIMS - He made everthing that exists, in "six days". In the absence (also of brains enough) to contradict, what on earth for not believe God?

But just as plainly, the Bible says "God said ... and IT WAS" - God gave self-ability to the things he gave origin to. Adaptation is God-given; to deny is just as unbelieveing as not to believe He is Sole-Creator!
The Word also says, "the earth shall bring forth" - it is not 'spontaneous origin', but received responsibility. Some things today do exist as a result of this Divine incentive and command, which cannot otherwise be explained - or one simply makes of himself a fool.

How much time was involved in its 'developement' - there is much to be debated! I just cannot see how it all could have happened in only some six thousand plus years. But I also cannot see the necesity of those billions and billions of years some insist on.

 

I said, "Some things today do exist as a result of this Divine incentive and command, which cannot otherwise be explained"
"Incentive" - wrong word. What I meant was something like 'incite-ment' (cannot now get at the right word).
But what is exiting - to this simpleton - is the exception God made concerning this earth "The earth shall ...". It makes 'our' earth unique. It only has life and life-sustaining capabilities - which of course must include the capability of adaptability (and hence certain 'evolutional' powers). But what is most significant is God here TALKS to us, to His earth and its ruler-inhabitant, man! If that is exiting, what will give you the goose flesh? So to see this world and its wonderfull interactions is just mind bogling. I cannot help, it convinces me of our Heavenly Father; makes me realise, God so loved this world, that He even was prepared to give His onlu begotten Son in order to save it, and as many as believe in Him.
Now that, to me, I must confess, is the ultimate proof, that God made us, created us, out of nothing, for His own and eternal purpose in Jesus Christ - he made us "man and women", "from the dust of the earth", "in the likeness of God" - as far as man is concerned, God "made", us "perfect" and "upright" ... "but man had clever ideas"! How sad!

 

Using our brains is not a sad thing.

Prov 8:25-36
25 "Before the mountains were settled, Before the hills I was brought forth; 26 While He had not yet made the earth and the fields, Nor the first dust of the world. 27 "When He established the heavens, I was there, When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep, 28 When He made firm the skies above, When the springs of the deep became fixed, 29 When He set for the sea its boundary So that the water would not transgress His command, When He marked out the foundations of the earth; 30 Then I was beside Him, as a master workman; And I was daily His delight, Rejoicing always before Him, 31 Rejoicing in the world, His earth, And having my delight in the sons of men.

32 "Now therefore, O sons, listen to me, For blessed are they who keep my ways. 33 "Heed instruction and be wise, And do not neglect it. 34 "Blessed is the man who listens to me, Watching daily at my gates, Waiting at my doorposts. 35 "For he who finds me finds life And obtains favor from the LORD. 36 "But he who sins against me injures himself; All those who hate me love death."
NASU