A HUGE new discovery in the field of DNA makes Darwinian theory even
more thoroughly unbelievable.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article2007490.ece

For instance, the groundbreaking research means that instead of humans
being 99% like chimps in our DNA, humans are only 96% similar in DNA to
chimps.

So for those who think a mutation led to the evolution of man from the
apes...well, just how many mutations DID it take??

That's because a single mutation rarely if ever promote new
life...rather they almost always are inferior and deter life.

So the idea that a lucky mutation occurred to promote human life is
quite extraordinary, if not impossible, to say the least.

So to believe in a 4% leap in mutations to bridge the gap between apes
and man is preposterous on its face. It takes a leap of faith to
believe in the one mutation theory, but now that leap exceeds the Grand
Canyon in its breadth.

Four percent mutations to go from ape to man. ROFL! That is a
nonstarter. Ptolemy's Circles look more realistic than Darwinism at
this point.

It'll be interesting to watch all the Darwinian Evel Knevels (sp?)
practicing their back flips on this extraordinary new finding that was
confirmed at 13 different centers.

To all the Darwinian apologists out there: You might as well to toss
your theory in the trash right now.

God is not Dead. But Darwinism sure is. The king is dead; long live the
king.

PS. I am not an Intelligent Design proponent, unless that hypothesis
includes Heirarchic Organization as its basis. Mutation of DNA is NOT a
part of Hierarchic Organization, except twithin viruses and within
bacteria. No mutation ever produces a jump from one species to another.
Ever.

awthrawthr@yahoo.com wrote:

A HUGE new discovery in the field of DNA makes Darwinian theory even
more thoroughly unbelievable.

No, it does not. It's at most a discovery that gene duplication is much
more common than thought and plays a more important role in evolution than
previously thought. But there is nothing fundamentally new. Which you
would know if you even had the slightest grasp of evolutionary theory.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article2007490.ece

For instance, the groundbreaking research means that instead of humans
being 99% like chimps in our DNA, humans are only 96% similar in DNA to
chimps.

Is that news? Oh sorry, I forgot, you're totally ignorant about basic
biology.

So for those who think a mutation led to the evolution of man from the
apes...well, just how many mutations DID it take??

That's because a single mutation rarely if ever promote new
life...rather they almost always are inferior and deter life.

So you not only spout BS about cancer and microscopes, you're also
creationist cretin? And where does any biologist claim that a mutation
promotes new life? Oh, and almost all mutations are neutral. Each and
every human has close to 300 in his genome. Something you would know if
you had ever cracked a basic biology textbook open. May I advise 'Biology
for dummies'?

So the idea that a lucky mutation occurred to promote human life is
quite extraordinary, if not impossible, to say the least.

Since nobody makes that claim, your point is moot. If you feel to smart
for 'Biology for dummies', I suggest Steve Jones, 'Almost like a whale'.
As an introduction.

So to believe in a 4% leap in mutations to bridge the gap between apes
and man is preposterous on its face. It takes a leap of faith to
believe in the one mutation theory, but now that leap exceeds the Grand
Canyon in its breadth.

Argument from ignorance - you don't understand it, so it didn't happen. In
your case that means you must not believe 99.9% of all science.

Four percent mutations to go from ape to man. ROFL! That is a
nonstarter. Ptolemy's Circles look more realistic than Darwinism at
this point.

There is no biologist who claims this, you've just come up with a strawman
so bad that even Answers in Genesis wouldn't dare come up with it.

It'll be interesting to watch all the Darwinian Evel Knevels (sp?)
practicing their back flips on this extraordinary new finding that was
confirmed at 13 different centers.

It's no problem at all for the theory of evolution. Since you don't
understand evolution at all, I'll try to explain it to you (I suspect it's
a waste of time, but never mind): it has been known for ages that the
duplication of DNA sequences (of whole genes) leads to the possibility
that one of those genes starts to diverge into something new, thanks to
mutations. It can do this, because 1 of the 2 copies can perform the
original task of the gene while the other is free to mutate and diverge.
The example of a gene duplication, with 1 copy mutating and then the
deletion of the original gene, has been used as an example of how an
'irreducibly complex pathway' can evolve and thus 'irreducible complexity'
is no problem in evolution, despite the squeeks of the ID-crowd. So gene
duplication is no problem for 'Darwinism', it's just one of a number of
ways in which life evolves, and one that biologists have been well aware
of for ages. Which you would know if you knew anything about biology.

To all the Darwinian apologists out there: You might as well to toss
your theory in the trash right now.

Darwin's theory worked fine without any knowledge of DNA whatsoever.
Darwin didn't even know about Mendel. Any discovery about DNA can therefor
have no effect on Darwinism. The foundation of evolutionary theory is
still as solid as a rock. Did I mention already you would know this if you
knew anything about biology?

God is not Dead. But Darwinism sure is. The king is dead; long live the
king.

PS. I am not an Intelligent Design proponent, unless that hypothesis
includes Heirarchic Organization as its basis. Mutation of DNA is NOT a
part of Hierarchic Organization, except twithin viruses and within
bacteria. No mutation ever produces a jump from one species to another.
Ever.

Your level of ignorance stands out again. Did nobody ever tell you
saltationism went out of fashion a very long time ago? About Darwin's
time. There are no jumps from one species to another.

"JohnDoe" <dont@spam.me> wrote in message
news:45655bc2$0$2024$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl...

awthrawthr@yahoo.com wrote:

A HUGE new discovery in the field of DNA makes Darwinian theory even
more thoroughly unbelievable.


No, it does not. It's at most a discovery that gene duplication is
much more common than thought and plays a more important role in
evolution than previously thought. But there is nothing fundamentally
new. Which you would know if you even had the slightest grasp of
evolutionary theory.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article2007490.ece


For instance, the groundbreaking research means that instead of humans
being 99% like chimps in our DNA, humans are only 96% similar in DNA to
chimps.


Is that news? Oh sorry, I forgot, you're totally ignorant about basic
biology.

So for those who think a mutation led to the evolution of man from the
apes...well, just how many mutations DID it take??

That's because a single mutation rarely if ever promote new
life...rather they almost always are inferior and deter life.


So you not only spout BS about cancer and microscopes, you're also
creationist cretin? And where does any biologist claim that a mutation
promotes new life? Oh, and almost all mutations are neutral. Each and
every human has close to 300 in his genome. Something you would know
if you had ever cracked a basic biology textbook open. May I advise
'Biology for dummies'?

So the idea that a lucky mutation occurred to promote human life is
quite extraordinary, if not impossible, to say the least.


Since nobody makes that claim, your point is moot. If you feel to
smart for 'Biology for dummies', I suggest Steve Jones, 'Almost like a
whale'. As an introduction.

So to believe in a 4% leap in mutations to bridge the gap between apes
and man is preposterous on its face. It takes a leap of faith to
believe in the one mutation theory, but now that leap exceeds the Grand
Canyon in its breadth.


Argument from ignorance - you don't understand it, so it didn't
happen. In your case that means you must not believe 99.9% of all
science.

Four percent mutations to go from ape to man. ROFL! That is a
nonstarter. Ptolemy's Circles look more realistic than Darwinism at
this point.


There is no biologist who claims this, you've just come up with a
strawman so bad that even Answers in Genesis wouldn't dare come up
with it.

It'll be interesting to watch all the Darwinian Evel Knevels (sp?)
practicing their back flips on this extraordinary new finding that was
confirmed at 13 different centers.


It's no problem at all for the theory of evolution. Since you don't
understand evolution at all, I'll try to explain it to you (I suspect
it's a waste of time, but never mind): it has been known for ages that
the duplication of DNA sequences (of whole genes) leads to the
possibility that one of those genes starts to diverge into something
new, thanks to mutations. It can do this, because 1 of the 2 copies
can perform the original task of the gene while the other is free to
mutate and diverge. The example of a gene duplication, with 1 copy
mutating and then the deletion of the original gene, has been used as
an example of how an 'irreducibly complex pathway' can evolve and thus
'irreducible complexity' is no problem in evolution, despite the
squeeks of the ID-crowd. So gene duplication is no problem for
'Darwinism', it's just one of a number of ways in which life evolves,
and one that biologists have been well aware of for ages. Which you
would know if you knew anything about biology.

To all the Darwinian apologists out there: You might as well to toss
your theory in the trash right now.


Darwin's theory worked fine without any knowledge of DNA whatsoever.
Darwin didn't even know about Mendel. Any discovery about DNA can
therefor have no effect on Darwinism. The foundation of evolutionary
theory is still as solid as a rock. Did I mention already you would
know this if you knew anything about biology?

God is not Dead. But Darwinism sure is. The king is dead; long live the
king.

PS. I am not an Intelligent Design proponent, unless that hypothesis
includes Heirarchic Organization as its basis. Mutation of DNA is NOT a
part of Hierarchic Organization, except twithin viruses and within
bacteria. No mutation ever produces a jump from one species to another.
Ever.


Your level of ignorance stands out again. Did nobody ever tell you
saltationism went out of fashion a very long time ago? About Darwin's
time. There are no jumps from one species to another.


Ok, then please explain "from Grub to Butterfly"?

A HUGE new discovery in the field of DNA makes Darwinian theory even
more thoroughly unbelievable.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article2007490.ece

For instance, the groundbreaking research means that instead of humans
being 99% like chimps in our DNA, humans are only 96% similar in DNA to
chimps.

"JohnDoe" <dont@spam.me> wrote in message
news:45655bc2$0$2024$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl...
awthrawthr@yahoo.com wrote:

A HUGE new discovery in the field of DNA makes Darwinian theory even
more thoroughly unbelievable.

No, it does not. It's at most a discovery that gene duplication is much
more common than thought and plays a more important role in evolution
than previously thought. But there is nothing fundamentally new. Which
you would know if you even had the slightest grasp of evolutionary
theory.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article2007490.ece

For instance, the groundbreaking research means that instead of humans
being 99% like chimps in our DNA, humans are only 96% similar in DNA to
chimps.

Is that news? Oh sorry, I forgot, you're totally ignorant about basic
biology.

So for those who think a mutation led to the evolution of man from the
apes...well, just how many mutations DID it take??

That's because a single mutation rarely if ever promote new
life...rather they almost always are inferior and deter life.

So you not only spout BS about cancer and microscopes, you're also
creationist cretin? And where does any biologist claim that a mutation
promotes new life? Oh, and almost all mutations are neutral. Each and
every human has close to 300 in his genome. Something you would know if
you had ever cracked a basic biology textbook open. May I advise 'Biology
for dummies'?

So the idea that a lucky mutation occurred to promote human life is
quite extraordinary, if not impossible, to say the least.

Since nobody makes that claim, your point is moot. If you feel to smart
for 'Biology for dummies', I suggest Steve Jones, 'Almost like a whale'.
As an introduction.

So to believe in a 4% leap in mutations to bridge the gap between apes
and man is preposterous on its face. It takes a leap of faith to
believe in the one mutation theory, but now that leap exceeds the Grand
Canyon in its breadth.

Argument from ignorance - you don't understand it, so it didn't happen.
In your case that means you must not believe 99.9% of all science.

Four percent mutations to go from ape to man. ROFL! That is a
nonstarter. Ptolemy's Circles look more realistic than Darwinism at
this point.

There is no biologist who claims this, you've just come up with a
strawman so bad that even Answers in Genesis wouldn't dare come up with
it.

It'll be interesting to watch all the Darwinian Evel Knevels (sp?)
practicing their back flips on this extraordinary new finding that was
confirmed at 13 different centers.

It's no problem at all for the theory of evolution. Since you don't
understand evolution at all, I'll try to explain it to you (I suspect
it's a waste of time, but never mind): it has been known for ages that
the duplication of DNA sequences (of whole genes) leads to the
possibility that one of those genes starts to diverge into something new,
thanks to mutations. It can do this, because 1 of the 2 copies can
perform the original task of the gene while the other is free to mutate
and diverge. The example of a gene duplication, with 1 copy mutating and
then the deletion of the original gene, has been used as an example of
how an 'irreducibly complex pathway' can evolve and thus 'irreducible
complexity' is no problem in evolution, despite the squeeks of the
ID-crowd. So gene duplication is no problem for 'Darwinism', it's just
one of a number of ways in which life evolves, and one that biologists
have been well aware of for ages. Which you would know if you knew
anything about biology.

To all the Darwinian apologists out there: You might as well to toss
your theory in the trash right now.

Darwin's theory worked fine without any knowledge of DNA whatsoever.
Darwin didn't even know about Mendel. Any discovery about DNA can
therefor have no effect on Darwinism. The foundation of evolutionary
theory is still as solid as a rock. Did I mention already you would know
this if you knew anything about biology?

God is not Dead. But Darwinism sure is. The king is dead; long live the
king.

PS. I am not an Intelligent Design proponent, unless that hypothesis
includes Heirarchic Organization as its basis. Mutation of DNA is NOT a
part of Hierarchic Organization, except twithin viruses and within
bacteria. No mutation ever produces a jump from one species to another.
Ever.

Your level of ignorance stands out again. Did nobody ever tell you
saltationism went out of fashion a very long time ago? About Darwin's
time. There are no jumps from one species to another.

Ok, then please explain "from Grub to Butterfly"?

awthrawthr@yahoo.com wrote:

A HUGE new discovery in the field of DNA makes Darwinian theory even
more thoroughly unbelievable.

No, it does not. It's at most a discovery that gene duplication is much
more common than thought and plays a more important role in evolution
than previously thought. But there is nothing fundamentally new. Which
you would know if you even had the slightest grasp of evolutionary theory.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article2007490.ece

For instance, the groundbreaking research means that instead of humans
being 99% like chimps in our DNA, humans are only 96% similar in DNA to
chimps.

Is that news? Oh sorry, I forgot, you're totally ignorant about basic
biology.

So for those who think a mutation led to the evolution of man from the
apes...well, just how many mutations DID it take??

That's because a single mutation rarely if ever promote new
life...rather they almost always are inferior and deter life.

So you not only spout BS about cancer and microscopes, you're also
creationist cretin? And where does any biologist claim that a mutation
promotes new life? Oh, and almost all mutations are neutral. Each and
every human has close to 300 in his genome. Something you would know if
you had ever cracked a basic biology textbook open. May I advise
'Biology for dummies'?

So the idea that a lucky mutation occurred to promote human life is
quite extraordinary, if not impossible, to say the least.

Since nobody makes that claim, your point is moot. If you feel to smart
for 'Biology for dummies', I suggest Steve Jones, 'Almost like a whale'.
As an introduction.

So to believe in a 4% leap in mutations to bridge the gap between apes
and man is preposterous on its face. It takes a leap of faith to
believe in the one mutation theory, but now that leap exceeds the Grand
Canyon in its breadth.

Argument from ignorance - you don't understand it, so it didn't happen.
In your case that means you must not believe 99.9% of all science.

Four percent mutations to go from ape to man. ROFL! That is a
nonstarter. Ptolemy's Circles look more realistic than Darwinism at
this point.

There is no biologist who claims this, you've just come up with a
strawman so bad that even Answers in Genesis wouldn't dare come up with it.

It'll be interesting to watch all the Darwinian Evel Knevels (sp?)
practicing their back flips on this extraordinary new finding that was
confirmed at 13 different centers.

It's no problem at all for the theory of evolution. Since you don't
understand evolution at all, I'll try to explain it to you (I suspect
it's a waste of time, but never mind): it has been known for ages that
the duplication of DNA sequences (of whole genes) leads to the
possibility that one of those genes starts to diverge into something
new, thanks to mutations. It can do this, because 1 of the 2 copies can
perform the original task of the gene while the other is free to mutate
and diverge. The example of a gene duplication, with 1 copy mutating and
then the deletion of the original gene, has been used as an example of
how an 'irreducibly complex pathway' can evolve and thus 'irreducible
complexity' is no problem in evolution, despite the squeeks of the
ID-crowd. So gene duplication is no problem for 'Darwinism', it's just
one of a number of ways in which life evolves, and one that biologists
have been well aware of for ages. Which you would know if you knew
anything about biology.

To all the Darwinian apologists out there: You might as well to toss
your theory in the trash right now.

Darwin's theory worked fine without any knowledge of DNA whatsoever.
Darwin didn't even know about Mendel. Any discovery about DNA can
therefor have no effect on Darwinism. The foundation of evolutionary
theory is still as solid as a rock. Did I mention already you would know
this if you knew anything about biology?

God is not Dead. But Darwinism sure is. The king is dead; long live the
king.

PS. I am not an Intelligent Design proponent, unless that hypothesis
includes Heirarchic Organization as its basis. Mutation of DNA is NOT a
part of Hierarchic Organization, except twithin viruses and within
bacteria. No mutation ever produces a jump from one species to another.
Ever.

Your level of ignorance stands out again. Did nobody ever tell you
saltationism went out of fashion a very long time ago? About Darwin's
time. There are no jumps from one species to another.

JohnDoe wrote:

awthrawthr@yahoo.com wrote:


A HUGE new discovery in the field of DNA makes Darwinian theory even
more thoroughly unbelievable.

No, it does not. It's at most a discovery that gene duplication is much
more common than thought and plays a more important role in evolution
than previously thought. But there is nothing fundamentally new. Which
you would know if you even had the slightest grasp of evolutionary theory.


http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article2007490.ece

For instance, the groundbreaking research means that instead of humans
being 99% like chimps in our DNA, humans are only 96% similar in DNA to
chimps.

Is that news? Oh sorry, I forgot, you're totally ignorant about basic
biology.


So for those who think a mutation led to the evolution of man from the
apes...well, just how many mutations DID it take??

That's because a single mutation rarely if ever promote new
life...rather they almost always are inferior and deter life.

So you not only spout BS about cancer and microscopes, you're also
creationist cretin? And where does any biologist claim that a mutation
promotes new life? Oh, and almost all mutations are neutral. Each and
every human has close to 300 in his genome. Something you would know if
you had ever cracked a basic biology textbook open. May I advise
'Biology for dummies'?


So the idea that a lucky mutation occurred to promote human life is
quite extraordinary, if not impossible, to say the least.

Since nobody makes that claim, your point is moot. If you feel to smart
for 'Biology for dummies', I suggest Steve Jones, 'Almost like a whale'.
As an introduction.


So to believe in a 4% leap in mutations to bridge the gap between apes
and man is preposterous on its face. It takes a leap of faith to
believe in the one mutation theory, but now that leap exceeds the Grand
Canyon in its breadth.

Argument from ignorance - you don't understand it, so it didn't happen.
In your case that means you must not believe 99.9% of all science.


Four percent mutations to go from ape to man. ROFL! That is a
nonstarter. Ptolemy's Circles look more realistic than Darwinism at
this point.

There is no biologist who claims this, you've just come up with a
strawman so bad that even Answers in Genesis wouldn't dare come up with it.


It'll be interesting to watch all the Darwinian Evel Knevels (sp?)
practicing their back flips on this extraordinary new finding that was
confirmed at 13 different centers.

It's no problem at all for the theory of evolution. Since you don't
understand evolution at all, I'll try to explain it to you (I suspect
it's a waste of time, but never mind): it has been known for ages that
the duplication of DNA sequences (of whole genes) leads to the
possibility that one of those genes starts to diverge into something
new, thanks to mutations. It can do this, because 1 of the 2 copies can
perform the original task of the gene while the other is free to mutate
and diverge. The example of a gene duplication, with 1 copy mutating and
then the deletion of the original gene, has been used as an example of
how an 'irreducibly complex pathway' can evolve and thus 'irreducible
complexity' is no problem in evolution, despite the squeeks of the
ID-crowd. So gene duplication is no problem for 'Darwinism', it's just
one of a number of ways in which life evolves, and one that biologists
have been well aware of for ages. Which you would know if you knew
anything about biology.


To all the Darwinian apologists out there: You might as well to toss
your theory in the trash right now.

Darwin's theory worked fine without any knowledge of DNA whatsoever.
Darwin didn't even know about Mendel. Any discovery about DNA can
therefor have no effect on Darwinism. The foundation of evolutionary
theory is still as solid as a rock. Did I mention already you would know
this if you knew anything about biology?


God is not Dead. But Darwinism sure is. The king is dead; long live the
king.

PS. I am not an Intelligent Design proponent, unless that hypothesis
includes Heirarchic Organization as its basis. Mutation of DNA is NOT a
part of Hierarchic Organization, except twithin viruses and within
bacteria. No mutation ever produces a jump from one species to another.
Ever.

Your level of ignorance stands out again. Did nobody ever tell you
saltationism went out of fashion a very long time ago? About Darwin's
time. There are no jumps from one species to another.


As everyone can note in the article, it is the alteration of DNA code
that is being looked at as the basis for why some people are suceptible
to disease. So no, one or two copies doesn't carry on the work while
another mutates harmlessly or beneficially.

The findings are such so groundbreaking that the research is being
simultaneously published in three peer review journals at once,
including "Nature." Meanwhile, you call it "nothing fundamentally new."
Let me repeat that, "NOTHING FUNDAMENTALLY NEW!!"

I'm surprised it got by the peer review panels, this "nothing
fundamentally new" research. ROFL!

As you'll note in the linked article, the research is quite the
opposite...it is causing scientists to rethink just about everything
they know about DNA and its implications. But for you it is NOTHING
FUNDAMENTALLY NEW. ROFL!

It's also funny how you automatically assumed that I was a creationist.

I have scant knowledge of what creationism is, nor do I have any idea
what Intelligent Design is. Sure God made everything, but how that
applies to Heirarchic Organization (The God thing doesn't apply to
evolution because evolution is starkly and totaly wrong.) ...it's not
something I know about. I have never read more than a few paragraphs on
ID or creationism.

The Church of Evolution, which you appear to be a baptised member, is
now officially destroyed by SCIENCE and "Nature." Keep back flippin'
'Evol. Knevol.'

Keep doing those 4% permutations. You know, don't you, that this is not
a bank where the higher percentage of difference gets you a greater
return?
Yup, we are just like apes except for that 4%. So with a little bit of
duct tape (we Evols use real Duck tape.) and some spit, we evolved from
apes.

A single DNA breakdown can get you Down Syndrome

or Willems or a host
of other visible disorders. But a 4% change, NO PROBLEM!

Man you need to be what is called a "true believer" to buy that garbage.

awthrawthr@yahoo.com wrote:

JohnDoe wrote:

awthrawthr@yahoo.com wrote:


A HUGE new discovery in the field of DNA makes Darwinian theory even
more thoroughly unbelievable.

No, it does not. It's at most a discovery that gene duplication is much
more common than thought and plays a more important role in evolution
than previously thought. But there is nothing fundamentally new. Which
you would know if you even had the slightest grasp of evolutionary theory.


http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article2007490.ece

For instance, the groundbreaking research means that instead of humans
being 99% like chimps in our DNA, humans are only 96% similar in DNA to
chimps.

Is that news? Oh sorry, I forgot, you're totally ignorant about basic
biology.


So for those who think a mutation led to the evolution of man from the
apes...well, just how many mutations DID it take??

That's because a single mutation rarely if ever promote new
life...rather they almost always are inferior and deter life.

So you not only spout BS about cancer and microscopes, you're also
creationist cretin? And where does any biologist claim that a mutation
promotes new life? Oh, and almost all mutations are neutral. Each and
every human has close to 300 in his genome. Something you would know if
you had ever cracked a basic biology textbook open. May I advise
'Biology for dummies'?


So the idea that a lucky mutation occurred to promote human life is
quite extraordinary, if not impossible, to say the least.

Since nobody makes that claim, your point is moot. If you feel to smart
for 'Biology for dummies', I suggest Steve Jones, 'Almost like a whale'.
As an introduction.


So to believe in a 4% leap in mutations to bridge the gap between apes
and man is preposterous on its face. It takes a leap of faith to
believe in the one mutation theory, but now that leap exceeds the Grand
Canyon in its breadth.

Argument from ignorance - you don't understand it, so it didn't happen.
In your case that means you must not believe 99.9% of all science.


Four percent mutations to go from ape to man. ROFL! That is a
nonstarter. Ptolemy's Circles look more realistic than Darwinism at
this point.

There is no biologist who claims this, you've just come up with a
strawman so bad that even Answers in Genesis wouldn't dare come up with it.


It'll be interesting to watch all the Darwinian Evel Knevels (sp?)
practicing their back flips on this extraordinary new finding that was
confirmed at 13 different centers.

It's no problem at all for the theory of evolution. Since you don't
understand evolution at all, I'll try to explain it to you (I suspect
it's a waste of time, but never mind): it has been known for ages that
the duplication of DNA sequences (of whole genes) leads to the
possibility that one of those genes starts to diverge into something
new, thanks to mutations. It can do this, because 1 of the 2 copies can
perform the original task of the gene while the other is free to mutate
and diverge. The example of a gene duplication, with 1 copy mutating and
then the deletion of the original gene, has been used as an example of
how an 'irreducibly complex pathway' can evolve and thus 'irreducible
complexity' is no problem in evolution, despite the squeeks of the
ID-crowd. So gene duplication is no problem for 'Darwinism', it's just
one of a number of ways in which life evolves, and one that biologists
have been well aware of for ages. Which you would know if you knew
anything about biology.


To all the Darwinian apologists out there: You might as well to toss
your theory in the trash right now.

Darwin's theory worked fine without any knowledge of DNA whatsoever.
Darwin didn't even know about Mendel. Any discovery about DNA can
therefor have no effect on Darwinism. The foundation of evolutionary
theory is still as solid as a rock. Did I mention already you would know
this if you knew anything about biology?


God is not Dead. But Darwinism sure is. The king is dead; long live the
king.

PS. I am not an Intelligent Design proponent, unless that hypothesis
includes Heirarchic Organization as its basis. Mutation of DNA is NOT a
part of Hierarchic Organization, except twithin viruses and within
bacteria. No mutation ever produces a jump from one species to another.
Ever.

Your level of ignorance stands out again. Did nobody ever tell you
saltationism went out of fashion a very long time ago? About Darwin's
time. There are no jumps from one species to another.


As everyone can note in the article, it is the alteration of DNA code
that is being looked at as the basis for why some people are suceptible
to disease. So no, one or two copies doesn't carry on the work while
another mutates harmlessly or beneficially.

I never said that is always the case. Having 2 copies of a gene could
lead to twice the production of whatever it is that gene produces
(protein, inhibitor or promotor for the expression of other genes) and
that certainly has the potential to cause problems. It's just not a
problem for the theory of evolution.

The findings are such so groundbreaking that the research is being
simultaneously published in three peer review journals at once,
including "Nature." Meanwhile, you call it "nothing fundamentally new."
Let me repeat that, "NOTHING FUNDAMENTALLY NEW!!"

I'm surprised it got by the peer review panels, this "nothing
fundamentally new" research. ROFL!

Gene duplication is nothing new for biologists. However, medical and
biological research are still rather seperate. The medical and not
evolutionary angle of looking at gene duplication may have yielded very
interesting and new insights, but it's not like they have discovered
that gene duplication happens. And certainly nothing that poses any
problem for the theory of evolution.

As you'll note in the linked article, the research is quite the
opposite...it is causing scientists to rethink just about everything
they know about DNA and its implications. But for you it is NOTHING
FUNDAMENTALLY NEW. ROFL!

Apparently, it's big news for health effects of genes. There is no big
news for the theory of evolution, which is your totally twisted take on
the article. Gene duplication happens, biologist have known this for a
long time, and it has a very nicely explained role in evolution. The
novelty is in the medical implications, not the evolutionary.

It's also funny how you automatically assumed that I was a creationist.

No, I didn't. You just sound very much like one. So much even, that you
should ask yourself if you are sure you're not.

I have scant knowledge of what creationism is, nor do I have any idea
what Intelligent Design is. Sure God made everything, but how that
applies to Heirarchic Organization (The God thing doesn't apply to
evolution because evolution is starkly and totaly wrong.) ...it's not
something I know about. I have never read more than a few paragraphs on
ID or creationism.

Neither on evolution, that much is clear.

The Church of Evolution, which you appear to be a baptised member, is
now officially destroyed by SCIENCE and "Nature." Keep back flippin'
'Evol. Knevol.'

Funny no biologist in the world thinks that just happened. It seems only
you think so, a person with close to 0% knowledge of the subject, and a
fan of "hierarchic organization', a notion with zero evidence.

Keep doing those 4% permutations. You know, don't you, that this is not
a bank where the higher percentage of difference gets you a greater
return?
Yup, we are just like apes except for that 4%. So with a little bit of
duct tape (we Evols use real Duck tape.) and some spit, we evolved from
apes.

Showing off that ignorance again. There is no biologist in the world
that claims humans evolved from apes. None. Get a basic textbook on
evolution and read it.

A single DNA breakdown can get you Down Syndrome

Down Syndrome is actually caused by your much touted DNA duplication,
specifically a duplication of all or part of the 21st chromosome. Care
to tell me again how gene duplication is something fundamentally and
totally new?

or Willems or a host
of other visible disorders. But a 4% change, NO PROBLEM!

Oh I get it now. You think that one day, suddenly, an ape gave birth to
a baby that had 4% mutations in it's DNA, and that baby was the first
human. This even surpasses the most ludricous claims I've seen from
cretinists!

Man you need to be what is called a "true believer" to buy that garbage.

IIRC, the average number of mutations that every human has in his/her
genome is 394. You really have to wonder how our species can even
function if you believe what you do about mutations. The fact that we're
doing fine despite those mutations should be ample proof that your ideas
about mutations are BS. Except that your are a 'true believer' in this
hierarchy thing and no amount of evidence is going to change your mind.

JohnDoe wrote:

awthrawthr@yahoo.com wrote:


JohnDoe wrote:


awthrawthr@yahoo.com wrote:



A HUGE new discovery in the field of DNA makes Darwinian theory even
more thoroughly unbelievable.

No, it does not. It's at most a discovery that gene duplication is much
more common than thought and plays a more important role in evolution
than previously thought. But there is nothing fundamentally new. Which
you would know if you even had the slightest grasp of evolutionary theory.



http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article2007490.ece

For instance, the groundbreaking research means that instead of humans
being 99% like chimps in our DNA, humans are only 96% similar in DNA to
chimps.

Is that news? Oh sorry, I forgot, you're totally ignorant about basic
biology.



So for those who think a mutation led to the evolution of man from the
apes...well, just how many mutations DID it take??

That's because a single mutation rarely if ever promote new
life...rather they almost always are inferior and deter life.

So you not only spout BS about cancer and microscopes, you're also
creationist cretin? And where does any biologist claim that a mutation
promotes new life? Oh, and almost all mutations are neutral. Each and
every human has close to 300 in his genome. Something you would know if
you had ever cracked a basic biology textbook open. May I advise
'Biology for dummies'?



So the idea that a lucky mutation occurred to promote human life is
quite extraordinary, if not impossible, to say the least.

Since nobody makes that claim, your point is moot. If you feel to smart
for 'Biology for dummies', I suggest Steve Jones, 'Almost like a whale'.
As an introduction.



So to believe in a 4% leap in mutations to bridge the gap between apes
and man is preposterous on its face. It takes a leap of faith to
believe in the one mutation theory, but now that leap exceeds the Grand
Canyon in its breadth.

Argument from ignorance - you don't understand it, so it didn't happen.
In your case that means you must not believe 99.9% of all science.



Four percent mutations to go from ape to man. ROFL! That is a
nonstarter. Ptolemy's Circles look more realistic than Darwinism at
this point.

There is no biologist who claims this, you've just come up with a
strawman so bad that even Answers in Genesis wouldn't dare come up with it.



It'll be interesting to watch all the Darwinian Evel Knevels (sp?)
practicing their back flips on this extraordinary new finding that was
confirmed at 13 different centers.

It's no problem at all for the theory of evolution. Since you don't
understand evolution at all, I'll try to explain it to you (I suspect
it's a waste of time, but never mind): it has been known for ages that
the duplication of DNA sequences (of whole genes) leads to the
possibility that one of those genes starts to diverge into something
new, thanks to mutations. It can do this, because 1 of the 2 copies can
perform the original task of the gene while the other is free to mutate
and diverge. The example of a gene duplication, with 1 copy mutating and
then the deletion of the original gene, has been used as an example of
how an 'irreducibly complex pathway' can evolve and thus 'irreducible
complexity' is no problem in evolution, despite the squeeks of the
ID-crowd. So gene duplication is no problem for 'Darwinism', it's just
one of a number of ways in which life evolves, and one that biologists
have been well aware of for ages. Which you would know if you knew
anything about biology.



To all the Darwinian apologists out there: You might as well to toss
your theory in the trash right now.

Darwin's theory worked fine without any knowledge of DNA whatsoever.
Darwin didn't even know about Mendel. Any discovery about DNA can
therefor have no effect on Darwinism. The foundation of evolutionary
theory is still as solid as a rock. Did I mention already you would know
this if you knew anything about biology?



God is not Dead. But Darwinism sure is. The king is dead; long live the
king.

PS. I am not an Intelligent Design proponent, unless that hypothesis
includes Heirarchic Organization as its basis. Mutation of DNA is NOT a
part of Hierarchic Organization, except twithin viruses and within
bacteria. No mutation ever produces a jump from one species to another.
Ever.

Your level of ignorance stands out again. Did nobody ever tell you
saltationism went out of fashion a very long time ago? About Darwin's
time. There are no jumps from one species to another.


As everyone can note in the article, it is the alteration of DNA code
that is being looked at as the basis for why some people are suceptible
to disease. So no, one or two copies doesn't carry on the work while
another mutates harmlessly or beneficially.

I never said that is always the case. Having 2 copies of a gene could
lead to twice the production of whatever it is that gene produces
(protein, inhibitor or promotor for the expression of other genes) and
that certainly has the potential to cause problems. It's just not a
problem for the theory of evolution.


The findings are such so groundbreaking that the research is being
simultaneously published in three peer review journals at once,
including "Nature." Meanwhile, you call it "nothing fundamentally new."
Let me repeat that, "NOTHING FUNDAMENTALLY NEW!!"

I'm surprised it got by the peer review panels, this "nothing
fundamentally new" research. ROFL!

Gene duplication is nothing new for biologists. However, medical and
biological research are still rather seperate. The medical and not
evolutionary angle of looking at gene duplication may have yielded very
interesting and new insights, but it's not like they have discovered
that gene duplication happens. And certainly nothing that poses any
problem for the theory of evolution.


As you'll note in the linked article, the research is quite the
opposite...it is causing scientists to rethink just about everything
they know about DNA and its implications. But for you it is NOTHING
FUNDAMENTALLY NEW. ROFL!

Apparently, it's big news for health effects of genes. There is no big
news for the theory of evolution, which is your totally twisted take on
the article. Gene duplication happens, biologist have known this for a
long time, and it has a very nicely explained role in evolution. The
novelty is in the medical implications, not the evolutionary.


It's also funny how you automatically assumed that I was a creationist.

No, I didn't. You just sound very much like one. So much even, that you
should ask yourself if you are sure you're not.


I have scant knowledge of what creationism is, nor do I have any idea
what Intelligent Design is. Sure God made everything, but how that
applies to Heirarchic Organization (The God thing doesn't apply to
evolution because evolution is starkly and totaly wrong.) ...it's not
something I know about. I have never read more than a few paragraphs on
ID or creationism.

Neither on evolution, that much is clear.


The Church of Evolution, which you appear to be a baptised member, is
now officially destroyed by SCIENCE and "Nature." Keep back flippin'
'Evol. Knevol.'

Funny no biologist in the world thinks that just happened. It seems only
you think so, a person with close to 0% knowledge of the subject, and a
fan of "hierarchic organization', a notion with zero evidence.


Keep doing those 4% permutations. You know, don't you, that this is not
a bank where the higher percentage of difference gets you a greater
return?
Yup, we are just like apes except for that 4%. So with a little bit of
duct tape (we Evols use real Duck tape.) and some spit, we evolved from
apes.

Showing off that ignorance again. There is no biologist in the world
that claims humans evolved from apes. None. Get a basic textbook on
evolution and read it.


A single DNA breakdown can get you Down Syndrome

Down Syndrome is actually caused by your much touted DNA duplication,
specifically a duplication of all or part of the 21st chromosome. Care
to tell me again how gene duplication is something fundamentally and
totally new?


or Willems or a host
of other visible disorders. But a 4% change, NO PROBLEM!

Oh I get it now. You think that one day, suddenly, an ape gave birth to
a baby that had 4% mutations in it's DNA, and that baby was the first
human. This even surpasses the most ludricous claims I've seen from
cretinists!


Man you need to be what is called a "true believer" to buy that garbage.

IIRC, the average number of mutations that every human has in his/her
genome is 394. You really have to wonder how our species can even
function if you believe what you do about mutations. The fact that we're
doing fine despite those mutations should be ample proof that your ideas
about mutations are BS. Except that your are a 'true believer' in this
hierarchy thing and no amount of evidence is going to change your mind.


I've got to get ready for Thanksgiving travel, so a full response will
have to come later. So one parting shot will have to do.

Hierarchic Organization merely has the substantiation from the Rife,
Naessen and Greyfield Microscopes.

In addition, it has the clinical application of being able to quell
viruses in 24 hours.

It's also supported indirectly by the findings of Dr. John Clemens,
discovery of lipid surfactantsand surface tension in lung development.
Celemens received the Lasker Award for that discovery.

Meanwhile, Darwinism and Evolutionary theory has buttkiss.

Rod wrote:


"JohnDoe" <dont@spam.me> wrote in message
news:45655bc2$0$2024$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl...

awthrawthr@yahoo.com wrote:

A HUGE new discovery in the field of DNA makes Darwinian theory even
more thoroughly unbelievable.


No, it does not. It's at most a discovery that gene duplication is much
more common than thought and plays a more important role in evolution
than previously thought. But there is nothing fundamentally new. Which
you would know if you even had the slightest grasp of evolutionary
theory.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article2007490.ece

For instance, the groundbreaking research means that instead of humans
being 99% like chimps in our DNA, humans are only 96% similar in DNA to
chimps.


Is that news? Oh sorry, I forgot, you're totally ignorant about basic
biology.

So for those who think a mutation led to the evolution of man from the
apes...well, just how many mutations DID it take??

That's because a single mutation rarely if ever promote new
life...rather they almost always are inferior and deter life.


So you not only spout BS about cancer and microscopes, you're also
creationist cretin? And where does any biologist claim that a mutation
promotes new life? Oh, and almost all mutations are neutral. Each and
every human has close to 300 in his genome. Something you would know if
you had ever cracked a basic biology textbook open. May I advise
'Biology for dummies'?

So the idea that a lucky mutation occurred to promote human life is
quite extraordinary, if not impossible, to say the least.


Since nobody makes that claim, your point is moot. If you feel to smart
for 'Biology for dummies', I suggest Steve Jones, 'Almost like a whale'.
As an introduction.

So to believe in a 4% leap in mutations to bridge the gap between apes
and man is preposterous on its face. It takes a leap of faith to
believe in the one mutation theory, but now that leap exceeds the Grand
Canyon in its breadth.


Argument from ignorance - you don't understand it, so it didn't happen.
In your case that means you must not believe 99.9% of all science.

Four percent mutations to go from ape to man. ROFL! That is a
nonstarter. Ptolemy's Circles look more realistic than Darwinism at
this point.


There is no biologist who claims this, you've just come up with a
strawman so bad that even Answers in Genesis wouldn't dare come up with
it.

It'll be interesting to watch all the Darwinian Evel Knevels (sp?)
practicing their back flips on this extraordinary new finding that was
confirmed at 13 different centers.


It's no problem at all for the theory of evolution. Since you don't
understand evolution at all, I'll try to explain it to you (I suspect
it's a waste of time, but never mind): it has been known for ages that
the duplication of DNA sequences (of whole genes) leads to the
possibility that one of those genes starts to diverge into something
new, thanks to mutations. It can do this, because 1 of the 2 copies can
perform the original task of the gene while the other is free to mutate
and diverge. The example of a gene duplication, with 1 copy mutating and
then the deletion of the original gene, has been used as an example of
how an 'irreducibly complex pathway' can evolve and thus 'irreducible
complexity' is no problem in evolution, despite the squeeks of the
ID-crowd. So gene duplication is no problem for 'Darwinism', it's just
one of a number of ways in which life evolves, and one that biologists
have been well aware of for ages. Which you would know if you knew
anything about biology.

To all the Darwinian apologists out there: You might as well to toss
your theory in the trash right now.


Darwin's theory worked fine without any knowledge of DNA whatsoever.
Darwin didn't even know about Mendel. Any discovery about DNA can
therefor have no effect on Darwinism. The foundation of evolutionary
theory is still as solid as a rock. Did I mention already you would know
this if you knew anything about biology?

God is not Dead. But Darwinism sure is. The king is dead; long live the
king.

PS. I am not an Intelligent Design proponent, unless that hypothesis
includes Heirarchic Organization as its basis. Mutation of DNA is NOT a
part of Hierarchic Organization, except twithin viruses and within
bacteria. No mutation ever produces a jump from one species to another.
Ever.


Your level of ignorance stands out again. Did nobody ever tell you
saltationism went out of fashion a very long time ago? About Darwin's
time. There are no jumps from one species to another.


Ok, then please explain "from Grub to Butterfly"?

There is no change in species there, so there is no jump between species
to explain. 'Biology for dummies' sounds like a book for you too.
And the explanation of metamorphosis is part of developmental biology, not
evolutionary biology.
Next question please.

"JohnDoe" <dont@spam.me> wrote in message
news:45659067$0$2026$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl...

Rod wrote:


"JohnDoe" <dont@spam.me> wrote in message
news:45655bc2$0$2024$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl...

awthrawthr@yahoo.com wrote:

A HUGE new discovery in the field of DNA makes Darwinian theory even
more thoroughly unbelievable.



No, it does not. It's at most a discovery that gene duplication is
much more common than thought and plays a more important role in
evolution than previously thought. But there is nothing
fundamentally new. Which you would know if you even had the
slightest grasp of evolutionary theory.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article2007490.ece


For instance, the groundbreaking research means that instead of humans
being 99% like chimps in our DNA, humans are only 96% similar in
DNA to
chimps.



Is that news? Oh sorry, I forgot, you're totally ignorant about
basic biology.

So for those who think a mutation led to the evolution of man from the
apes...well, just how many mutations DID it take??

That's because a single mutation rarely if ever promote new
life...rather they almost always are inferior and deter life.



So you not only spout BS about cancer and microscopes, you're also
creationist cretin? And where does any biologist claim that a
mutation promotes new life? Oh, and almost all mutations are
neutral. Each and every human has close to 300 in his genome.
Something you would know if you had ever cracked a basic biology
textbook open. May I advise 'Biology for dummies'?

So the idea that a lucky mutation occurred to promote human life is
quite extraordinary, if not impossible, to say the least.



Since nobody makes that claim, your point is moot. If you feel to
smart for 'Biology for dummies', I suggest Steve Jones, 'Almost like
a whale'. As an introduction.

So to believe in a 4% leap in mutations to bridge the gap between apes
and man is preposterous on its face. It takes a leap of faith to
believe in the one mutation theory, but now that leap exceeds the
Grand
Canyon in its breadth.



Argument from ignorance - you don't understand it, so it didn't
happen. In your case that means you must not believe 99.9% of all
science.

Four percent mutations to go from ape to man. ROFL! That is a
nonstarter. Ptolemy's Circles look more realistic than Darwinism at
this point.



There is no biologist who claims this, you've just come up with a
strawman so bad that even Answers in Genesis wouldn't dare come up
with it.

It'll be interesting to watch all the Darwinian Evel Knevels (sp?)
practicing their back flips on this extraordinary new finding that was
confirmed at 13 different centers.



It's no problem at all for the theory of evolution. Since you don't
understand evolution at all, I'll try to explain it to you (I
suspect it's a waste of time, but never mind): it has been known for
ages that the duplication of DNA sequences (of whole genes) leads to
the possibility that one of those genes starts to diverge into
something new, thanks to mutations. It can do this, because 1 of the
2 copies can perform the original task of the gene while the other
is free to mutate and diverge. The example of a gene duplication,
with 1 copy mutating and then the deletion of the original gene, has
been used as an example of how an 'irreducibly complex pathway' can
evolve and thus 'irreducible complexity' is no problem in evolution,
despite the squeeks of the ID-crowd. So gene duplication is no
problem for 'Darwinism', it's just one of a number of ways in which
life evolves, and one that biologists have been well aware of for
ages. Which you would know if you knew anything about biology.

To all the Darwinian apologists out there: You might as well to toss
your theory in the trash right now.



Darwin's theory worked fine without any knowledge of DNA whatsoever.
Darwin didn't even know about Mendel. Any discovery about DNA can
therefor have no effect on Darwinism. The foundation of evolutionary
theory is still as solid as a rock. Did I mention already you would
know this if you knew anything about biology?

God is not Dead. But Darwinism sure is. The king is dead; long live
the
king.

PS. I am not an Intelligent Design proponent, unless that hypothesis
includes Heirarchic Organization as its basis. Mutation of DNA is
NOT a
part of Hierarchic Organization, except twithin viruses and within
bacteria. No mutation ever produces a jump from one species to
another.
Ever.



Your level of ignorance stands out again. Did nobody ever tell you
saltationism went out of fashion a very long time ago? About
Darwin's time. There are no jumps from one species to another.



Ok, then please explain "from Grub to Butterfly"?


There is no change in species there, so there is no jump between
species to explain. 'Biology for dummies' sounds like a book for you too.
And the explanation of metamorphosis is part of developmental biology,
not evolutionary biology.
Next question please.


Well you are so right with that reply. How come that Birds evolved from
Reptiles without a change in species then ?

Then explain why Metamorphosis did not apply to them.

Also while you are at it please explain how fish became reptiles trading
in Fins for Legs.

How did Mammals arise and from what species?

Are you sure there is no jump from one species to another?

Many an example of Humans being similar to Gorillas or lessor animals.

"JohnDoe" <dont@spam.me> wrote in message
news:45659067$0$2026$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl...
Rod wrote:


"JohnDoe" <dont@spam.me> wrote in message
news:45655bc2$0$2024$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl...

awthrawthr@yahoo.com wrote:

A HUGE new discovery in the field of DNA makes Darwinian theory even
more thoroughly unbelievable.


No, it does not. It's at most a discovery that gene duplication is much
more common than thought and plays a more important role in evolution
than previously thought. But there is nothing fundamentally new. Which
you would know if you even had the slightest grasp of evolutionary
theory.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article2007490.ece

For instance, the groundbreaking research means that instead of humans
being 99% like chimps in our DNA, humans are only 96% similar in DNA
to
chimps.


Is that news? Oh sorry, I forgot, you're totally ignorant about basic
biology.

So for those who think a mutation led to the evolution of man from the
apes...well, just how many mutations DID it take??

That's because a single mutation rarely if ever promote new
life...rather they almost always are inferior and deter life.


So you not only spout BS about cancer and microscopes, you're also
creationist cretin? And where does any biologist claim that a mutation
promotes new life? Oh, and almost all mutations are neutral. Each and
every human has close to 300 in his genome. Something you would know if
you had ever cracked a basic biology textbook open. May I advise
'Biology for dummies'?

So the idea that a lucky mutation occurred to promote human life is
quite extraordinary, if not impossible, to say the least.


Since nobody makes that claim, your point is moot. If you feel to smart
for 'Biology for dummies', I suggest Steve Jones, 'Almost like a
whale'. As an introduction.

So to believe in a 4% leap in mutations to bridge the gap between apes
and man is preposterous on its face. It takes a leap of faith to
believe in the one mutation theory, but now that leap exceeds the
Grand
Canyon in its breadth.


Argument from ignorance - you don't understand it, so it didn't happen.
In your case that means you must not believe 99.9% of all science.

Four percent mutations to go from ape to man. ROFL! That is a
nonstarter. Ptolemy's Circles look more realistic than Darwinism at
this point.


There is no biologist who claims this, you've just come up with a
strawman so bad that even Answers in Genesis wouldn't dare come up with
it.

It'll be interesting to watch all the Darwinian Evel Knevels (sp?)
practicing their back flips on this extraordinary new finding that was
confirmed at 13 different centers.


It's no problem at all for the theory of evolution. Since you don't
understand evolution at all, I'll try to explain it to you (I suspect
it's a waste of time, but never mind): it has been known for ages that
the duplication of DNA sequences (of whole genes) leads to the
possibility that one of those genes starts to diverge into something
new, thanks to mutations. It can do this, because 1 of the 2 copies can
perform the original task of the gene while the other is free to mutate
and diverge. The example of a gene duplication, with 1 copy mutating
and then the deletion of the original gene, has been used as an example
of how an 'irreducibly complex pathway' can evolve and thus
'irreducible complexity' is no problem in evolution, despite the
squeeks of the ID-crowd. So gene duplication is no problem for
'Darwinism', it's just one of a number of ways in which life evolves,
and one that biologists have been well aware of for ages. Which you
would know if you knew anything about biology.

To all the Darwinian apologists out there: You might as well to toss
your theory in the trash right now.


Darwin's theory worked fine without any knowledge of DNA whatsoever.
Darwin didn't even know about Mendel. Any discovery about DNA can
therefor have no effect on Darwinism. The foundation of evolutionary
theory is still as solid as a rock. Did I mention already you would
know this if you knew anything about biology?

God is not Dead. But Darwinism sure is. The king is dead; long live
the
king.

PS. I am not an Intelligent Design proponent, unless that hypothesis
includes Heirarchic Organization as its basis. Mutation of DNA is NOT
a
part of Hierarchic Organization, except twithin viruses and within
bacteria. No mutation ever produces a jump from one species to
another.
Ever.


Your level of ignorance stands out again. Did nobody ever tell you
saltationism went out of fashion a very long time ago? About Darwin's
time. There are no jumps from one species to another.


Ok, then please explain "from Grub to Butterfly"?

There is no change in species there, so there is no jump between species
to explain. 'Biology for dummies' sounds like a book for you too.
And the explanation of metamorphosis is part of developmental biology,
not evolutionary biology.
Next question please.

Well you are so right with that reply. How come that Birds evolved from
Reptiles without a change in species then ?
Then explain why Metamorphosis did not apply to them.
Also while you are at it please explain how fish became reptiles trading
in Fins for Legs.
How did Mammals arise and from what species?

Are you sure their is no jump from one species to another? Many an
example of Humans being similar to Gorillas or lessor animals.

Thanks.

awthrawthr@yahoo.com wrote:
JohnDoe wrote:

awthrawthr@yahoo.com wrote:


JohnDoe wrote:


awthrawthr@yahoo.com wrote:



A HUGE new discovery in the field of DNA makes Darwinian theory even
more thoroughly unbelievable.

No, it does not. It's at most a discovery that gene duplication is much
more common than thought and plays a more important role in evolution
than previously thought. But there is nothing fundamentally new. Which
you would know if you even had the slightest grasp of evolutionary
theory.



http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article2007490.ece

For instance, the groundbreaking research means that instead of humans
being 99% like chimps in our DNA, humans are only 96% similar in DNA
to
chimps.

Is that news? Oh sorry, I forgot, you're totally ignorant about basic
biology.



So for those who think a mutation led to the evolution of man from the
apes...well, just how many mutations DID it take??

That's because a single mutation rarely if ever promote new
life...rather they almost always are inferior and deter life.

So you not only spout BS about cancer and microscopes, you're also
creationist cretin? And where does any biologist claim that a mutation
promotes new life? Oh, and almost all mutations are neutral. Each and
every human has close to 300 in his genome. Something you would know if
you had ever cracked a basic biology textbook open. May I advise
'Biology for dummies'?



So the idea that a lucky mutation occurred to promote human life is
quite extraordinary, if not impossible, to say the least.

Since nobody makes that claim, your point is moot. If you feel to smart
for 'Biology for dummies', I suggest Steve Jones, 'Almost like a
whale'.
As an introduction.



So to believe in a 4% leap in mutations to bridge the gap between apes
and man is preposterous on its face. It takes a leap of faith to
believe in the one mutation theory, but now that leap exceeds the
Grand
Canyon in its breadth.

Argument from ignorance - you don't understand it, so it didn't happen.
In your case that means you must not believe 99.9% of all science.



Four percent mutations to go from ape to man. ROFL! That is a
nonstarter. Ptolemy's Circles look more realistic than Darwinism at
this point.

There is no biologist who claims this, you've just come up with a
strawman so bad that even Answers in Genesis wouldn't dare come up with
it.



It'll be interesting to watch all the Darwinian Evel Knevels (sp?)
practicing their back flips on this extraordinary new finding that was
confirmed at 13 different centers.

It's no problem at all for the theory of evolution. Since you don't
understand evolution at all, I'll try to explain it to you (I suspect
it's a waste of time, but never mind): it has been known for ages that
the duplication of DNA sequences (of whole genes) leads to the
possibility that one of those genes starts to diverge into something
new, thanks to mutations. It can do this, because 1 of the 2 copies can
perform the original task of the gene while the other is free to mutate
and diverge. The example of a gene duplication, with 1 copy mutating
and
then the deletion of the original gene, has been used as an example of
how an 'irreducibly complex pathway' can evolve and thus 'irreducible
complexity' is no problem in evolution, despite the squeeks of the
ID-crowd. So gene duplication is no problem for 'Darwinism', it's just
one of a number of ways in which life evolves, and one that biologists
have been well aware of for ages. Which you would know if you knew
anything about biology.



To all the Darwinian apologists out there: You might as well to toss
your theory in the trash right now.

Darwin's theory worked fine without any knowledge of DNA whatsoever.
Darwin didn't even know about Mendel. Any discovery about DNA can
therefor have no effect on Darwinism. The foundation of evolutionary
theory is still as solid as a rock. Did I mention already you would
know
this if you knew anything about biology?



God is not Dead. But Darwinism sure is. The king is dead; long live
the
king.

PS. I am not an Intelligent Design proponent, unless that hypothesis
includes Heirarchic Organization as its basis. Mutation of DNA is NOT
a
part of Hierarchic Organization, except twithin viruses and within
bacteria. No mutation ever produces a jump from one species to
another.
Ever.

Your level of ignorance stands out again. Did nobody ever tell you
saltationism went out of fashion a very long time ago? About Darwin's
time. There are no jumps from one species to another.


As everyone can note in the article, it is the alteration of DNA code
that is being looked at as the basis for why some people are suceptible
to disease. So no, one or two copies doesn't carry on the work while
another mutates harmlessly or beneficially.

I never said that is always the case. Having 2 copies of a gene could
lead to twice the production of whatever it is that gene produces
(protein, inhibitor or promotor for the expression of other genes) and
that certainly has the potential to cause problems. It's just not a
problem for the theory of evolution.


The findings are such so groundbreaking that the research is being
simultaneously published in three peer review journals at once,
including "Nature." Meanwhile, you call it "nothing fundamentally new."
Let me repeat that, "NOTHING FUNDAMENTALLY NEW!!"

I'm surprised it got by the peer review panels, this "nothing
fundamentally new" research. ROFL!

Gene duplication is nothing new for biologists. However, medical and
biological research are still rather seperate. The medical and not
evolutionary angle of looking at gene duplication may have yielded very
interesting and new insights, but it's not like they have discovered
that gene duplication happens. And certainly nothing that poses any
problem for the theory of evolution.


As you'll note in the linked article, the research is quite the
opposite...it is causing scientists to rethink just about everything
they know about DNA and its implications. But for you it is NOTHING
FUNDAMENTALLY NEW. ROFL!

Apparently, it's big news for health effects of genes. There is no big
news for the theory of evolution, which is your totally twisted take on
the article. Gene duplication happens, biologist have known this for a
long time, and it has a very nicely explained role in evolution. The
novelty is in the medical implications, not the evolutionary.


It's also funny how you automatically assumed that I was a creationist.

No, I didn't. You just sound very much like one. So much even, that you
should ask yourself if you are sure you're not.


I have scant knowledge of what creationism is, nor do I have any idea
what Intelligent Design is. Sure God made everything, but how that
applies to Heirarchic Organization (The God thing doesn't apply to
evolution because evolution is starkly and totaly wrong.) ...it's not
something I know about. I have never read more than a few paragraphs on
ID or creationism.

Neither on evolution, that much is clear.


The Church of Evolution, which you appear to be a baptised member, is
now officially destroyed by SCIENCE and "Nature." Keep back flippin'
'Evol. Knevol.'

Funny no biologist in the world thinks that just happened. It seems only
you think so, a person with close to 0% knowledge of the subject, and a
fan of "hierarchic organization', a notion with zero evidence.


Keep doing those 4% permutations. You know, don't you, that this is not
a bank where the higher percentage of difference gets you a greater
return?
Yup, we are just like apes except for that 4%. So with a little bit of
duct tape (we Evols use real Duck tape.) and some spit, we evolved from
apes.

Showing off that ignorance again. There is no biologist in the world
that claims humans evolved from apes. None. Get a basic textbook on
evolution and read it.


A single DNA breakdown can get you Down Syndrome

Down Syndrome is actually caused by your much touted DNA duplication,
specifically a duplication of all or part of the 21st chromosome. Care
to tell me again how gene duplication is something fundamentally and
totally new?


or Willems or a host
of other visible disorders. But a 4% change, NO PROBLEM!

Oh I get it now. You think that one day, suddenly, an ape gave birth to
a baby that had 4% mutations in it's DNA, and that baby was the first
human. This even surpasses the most ludricous claims I've seen from
cretinists!


Man you need to be what is called a "true believer" to buy that garbage.

IIRC, the average number of mutations that every human has in his/her
genome is 394. You really have to wonder how our species can even
function if you believe what you do about mutations. The fact that we're
doing fine despite those mutations should be ample proof that your ideas
about mutations are BS. Except that your are a 'true believer' in this
hierarchy thing and no amount of evidence is going to change your mind.


I've got to get ready for Thanksgiving travel, so a full response will
have to come later. So one parting shot will have to do.

Enjoy the turkey!

Hierarchic Organization merely has the substantiation from the Rife,
Naessen and Greyfield Microscopes.

Indeed, that's all it has, support from microscop