Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Newhope

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday 08/28/1947

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Astronomy, soap making, bush walking, gym.

Previous Fields

  • What is your Gender?
  • How old are you?
  • What is your affiliation/religion?
  • What is your Worldview?
  • Where do you live (i.e. Denver, Colorado)
    NSW, Australia
  1. Newhope

    How Easy Is Evolution To Debunk?

    What I like best is to point out that researchers use the only part of the genome that may display similarities to other primates, MtDNA. In fact Wiki Chimpanzee genome project cites as much as a 30% difference and that does not include the 10% difference in size and the different surface structure between ape and human. Some creature will bbe closer than others and that appears to be a chimp in some regions, but we are closer to other primates like an orang in parts. I think creationists, if appropriarely funded, would be able to invent similar algorithms as evolutionists do with insertion values and assumptions that give them the results they require, likewise. Human DNA contamination is huge. What happens if a cat or dog like creature licked the fossil bones or urinated on them some time prior to testing and left behind their DNA? Would this show direct ancestry to a dog or cat? I agree that TOE rests on shakey ground.
  2. Newhope

    Homo Erectus

    Hey there Portillo This is late and your debate is likely over. I haven't read all posts but I'll give you what I see in the fossil. Most creationists see Erectus as fully human. I don't however. http://www.detectingdesign.com/earlyman.html The link above shows the reconstruction of Eragaster and compares it with Turkana Boy, who is classed as either Eragaster or Erectus. Scroll down to Turkana Boy. Despite all the hype about Turkana Boy he was found in pieces and reconstructed. On front view he looks human. However from the side one can see how much of an ape he is. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070324133018.htm The link above shows Rudolfensis reconstructed. Eragaster, Erectus & Rudolfensis lived similtaniously. They look like apes despite the arms being illustrated as of human length. I am not even sure if the arms belong to the same individual. You can see these appear to be the same species displaying S@xual dimorphism and in-species variation, as many non-human primates do. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070813093132.htm The link above speaks to the S@xual dimorphism now seen in Homo Erectus with new finds. Turkana Boy also does not appear to have complex speech. If you take Holobaramins as use your own criteria rather than the IDers some YECS it is easy to see discontinuity between mankind and ape. The skull takes these species out of the human realm and place them in a holobaramin with apes, leaving modern man as a holobaramin and an independent creation. Much the same as the bushy tailed squirrel like creature identified as the common ancestor for man and ape looks more like a squirrel than an ape or a human. Therefore it is more likely to be a squirel-like creature than anything else. If it looks like an ape it is more likely to be a kind of ape than an ape/human intermediate. I believe the majority of fossils attributed to the human line are simply apes. Additional support for this assertion is that researchers have found few fossils re chimp ancestry as well as other primate fossils. I believe all fossils are likely thrown into the human line and that is the most likely reason why they have found few. Well, that's what I think anyway.
  3. Newhope

    Protein Sequence Homology

    So are you saying this data below is incorrect? I beleive it is still correct data regardless of who Pitman is. Can you explain it? There are many other interesting little problems concerning commonly used phylogenic tracing genes and proteins. For example, mammalian and amphibian "luteinizing hormone – releasing hormone" (LHRH) is identical. However, birds, reptiles, and certain fish have a different type of LHRH. Are humans therefore more closely related to frogs than to birds? Not according to standard evolutionary phylogeny trees. Again, the data does not match the classical theory in this particular situation.15 Cytochrome c is another famous phylogenic marker protein used to determine evolutionary relationships. There is only a single amino acid difference between human and chimp cytochrome c. Because of this, many assume that the evolutionary link is obvious. However, with many other animals, this link is not so obvious. For example, the cytochrome c protein of a turtle is closer to a bird than it is to a snake and a snake is closer to a human (14 variations) than it is to a turtle (22 variations).5 http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/geneticphylogeny.html#Cytochrome I might add that the Max Planck Insistute stuffed up their Neanderthal sequencing by contamination. Does that mean we should not listen to anything the Institute has to say? Pitman is no dummy. I see many people without biology credentials that know and understand this stuff and their opinion is as good as yours, at least. http://www.creationwiki.org/Sean_Pitman The famous Richard Dawkins is an ethologist and an evolutionary biologist, which is only a sub branch of biology. His credentials are in zoology. Does that mean we should listen to nothing he has to say about genetics?
  4. Newhope

    Protein Sequence Homology

    What I am trying to say is that cytochrome comparisons mean nothing at all, paricularly not common decent. This article below is written by an evolutionist. I will use his words as I am not scientifically educated. "I propose that the clustered differences that are seen in genes and protein sequences, such cytochrome c, are the result of differences in function that actually benefit the various organisms according to their different individual needs. If the differences were in fact neutral differences, there would be a vast overlap by now with complete blurring of species' cytochrome c boundaries - even between species as obviously different as humans and bacteria. Because of this, sequence differences may not be so much the result of differences due to random mutation over time as they are due to differences in the functional needs of different creatures. I think that the same can be said of most if not all phylogenies that are based on genotypic differences between all living things. For example, consider that if either humans or bacteria would be better served by a different sequence for a particular function this different sequence would be rapidly evolved - especially in bacteria. If the human sequence for cytochrome c would better serve E. coli bacteria than their current fairly similar type of cytochrome c, how can an evolutionist say that E. coli would have very much trouble at all evolving the human sequence? The fact that the sequences remain consistently different over a significant span of real time observation (over a million generations for bacteria at least) is very good evidence that the differences in DNA character sequencing are based in differences of functional need, not evolutionary heritage." http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/geneticphylogeny.html#Cytochrome Note that this guy puts up an argument that supports my assertion that cytochrome c has nothing to do with evolutionary heritage. According to him any change is internally driven. I say it is internally created within kinds. If God created kinds then discrediting the use of this enzyme as a basis for proof of common decent is all that is necessary as a biblical creationist, I think. It is IDers that have their hat in both realm that need to explain further, perhaps. I see also that a horse and donkey(99%) are more different that a human and an ape(100%). Now, I understand evolutionists hate to talk about common sense, but here you have none. It is fairly obvious that a horse and donkey should be a closer match than a man and an ape. However according to the cytochrome c this is not the case. There are other discrepencies that are tossed aside by nothing more than a hand wave. What this means to me is that cytochrome c has nothing to do with common decent. Rather it is a wonderful creation put into action at the abiogenesis of the formation of kinds by a science we are yet to comprehend. God created kinds (abiogenesis). These kinds have the variation of cytochrome c required to perfor the function required. All life has been created with it because it is a part of an irreducibly complex system, not because I am related to bacteria. I will also refer you to this article on Chaos Theory. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827821.000-the-chaos-theory-of-evolution.html?full=true Not only is the relationship non-linear, it also changes all the time. Mutations occur continually, without external influence, and can be passed on to the next generation. A change of a single base of an organism's DNA might have no consequence, because that section of DNA still codes for the same amino acid. Alternatively, it might cause a significant change in the offspring's physiology or morphology, or it might even be fatal. In other words, a single small change can have far-reaching and unpredictable effects - the hallmark of a non-linear system. So this article suggests that macroevolution is not the simple accumulation of microevolutionary changes but driven by internally generated genetic change. There is no correlation with catastrophe or ice ages. There is really alot of research around that throws a spanner in your bottle necks, that are supposed to make sense of it all. HGT further confounds any comparative genetic homology. The bottom line is that it has all gotten so complex that your mathematical models cannot give reliable data and it is all in a mess anyway, with hand waving the explanation for it. The answer to Lyells question may be as simple as some survived the glaciation and then repopulated, unchanged 2 millions years later, just as a creationist would expect to happen. These problems are evolutionist concerns. Cytochrome c in tact and unchanged and no evolution. So if evos do not want to talk about abiogenesis, then I should be able to simply assert God 'created' kinds with cytochrome c performing the function that it was created to do in that kind. That along with discrediting the use of cytochrome c similarities as any sort of common ancestry connection wraps it up for me.
  5. Newhope

    Protein Sequence Homology

    I have tried to stay out of this due to my non understanding most of it. I'll just make a few comments. I have had a look around and it appears that the bottom evolutionary line is "However there is no universally agreed upon theory that explains why proteins with multiple roles evolved". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_sharing So basically evolutionists have found this cytochrome c, found that it performs different functions in various species, there are different types and all aerobic life contains it. From here there appears to be a huge leap of faith to infer this is as a result of evolution, rather than a common designer that created some species with variations, of not only a great idea, but likely the only idea/plan that will maintain life in carbon based world. What makes anyone think that if life evolved on another carbon based planet that it too would not have an enzyme just like Cytochrome c, yet there would be no ancestry. I understand that with HGT and the death of LUCA the rise of multiple primitive cells is the current thinking. So here we have life arising multiple times..meaning living cells. Are these all supposed to have had this Cytochrome C you are all talking about? If so, does this not indicate that these primitive cells, that arose naturally and individually,were so similar in genomic structure anyway that gene transfer was able to occur. The tangled bush at the base of HGT tree demonstrates that really researchers cannot tell. If cytochrome c was not around in primitive cells, then it evolved by itself when the earth became oxygenated. So another dilemma. Why would not all life that existed at the time 'evolve' cytochrome c independently as an adaptation, again refuting ancestry as the only explanation. How do evolutionists know that indeed this cytochrome C did not arise many times individully as a matter of necessity, in that aerobic life cannot live and do its thing without it? Bacteria have it. Maybe these individual primitive cells all had this enzyme to begin with, in which case it makes no case for evoloution. Once again it appears that it is presumptions that fit the evolutionary paradign that actually support TOE. The presumed primitive RNA world is afterall only an hypothesis to begin with, so I would suggest scientists do not know, they can only guess. There are too many questions and not enough answers in evolutionary thinkng. This article below highlights some discrepencies: "The tree corresponds quite well to what we have long believed to be the evolutionary relationships among the vertebrates. But there are some anomalies. It indicates, for example, that the primates (humans and monkeys) split off before the split separating the kangaroo, a marsupial, from the other placental mammals. This is certainly wrong. But sequence analysis of other proteins can resolve such discrepancies." http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/T/Taxonomy.html So it appears modelling is not a reliable source. When the data does not fit the evolutionary paradigm then evolutionists use another method that suits them. Well..that is what it looks like to me. This article explains it simply. "If evolution were true, one would expect the cytochrome C to blend as smoothly as a rainbow from one biological classification (phylum, family, order, or class) to another. But, it doesnt. You dont even find the equivalent of a minivan with the soul of a sports car in the molecular data. It appears that all species designed for a certain environment were given similar tires" http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v7i10f.htm
  6. Newhope

    Human "evolution" Requires More Time

    Thanks for the reply. I have many questions to ask about all this. Perhaps I should request a thread be started for the purposes of the scientifically uneducated to pose question to you,Fred, jason and others here to assist me hold up a debate in the big world. Maybe there is already one that I have not seen. Jason yes, forensics has some problems. I hold a little more faith in research that deals with the here and now. For example evo research demonstrates that mankind is not related to any species alive today. Hence the need for a common ancestor. Apparently chimeras are more common than expected and this does cause some complications also. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC50614/ I would like to know what all this genomic research would look like without the assumption of ancestry. I also wonder if any creationists have attempted similar models with creation as the assumption. I have seen much evidence for creation but not via fancy complicated models such as those used by evo researchers. When researchers say they see genetic markers, or relics or something or remnants of a centromere etc, what is it that they are seeing. I would love to know how to refute this, but this thread is not the place.
  7. Newhope

    Human "evolution" Requires More Time

    That should be fun. It will be good to have a deep understaning of genetics. I wish I did so I could debate at deeper levels. I think I would likely be a pain in an evolutionary class because I would have to hold back on challenging the teacher. I also wonder what other creationists do in such classes and if they just need to go with the flow, give the answers that are expected to get throught the course. This is a link to some of the debate going on in evolutionary genetics. It is a little old, being 2004, but it highlights that really what you will be taught is many likely, maybes and probably's. Really I do not see scientists being sure of anything. More recently Horizontal Gene Transfer has confounded models and new ones have had to be invented to account for it. http://www.genetics.org/content/170/1/1.full http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/4/681.full Epigentic inheritance is also demonstrating that Mendellian inheritance is not the only means of genetic inheritance. It appears a bottleneck is required to explain the lack of human genetic variation. The Toba catastrophe is the one researchers say explains it all. However, there is research suggesting that Toba did not have a marked impact on humans or other biota. So again this research makes no sense to me. I hope you understand why the theory of evolution continues to survive, because I think no amount of time is going to provide the answers evolutionists are looking for... especially when it comes to mankind http://ice2.uab.cat/argo/Argo_actualitzacio/argo_butlleti/ccee/geologia/arxius/4Gathorne-Hardy.pdf I hope you enjoy your course.
  8. I'd just like to pop in and say this discussion is very enlightening. I had wondered why such a strong repremand was made for a seemingly innocent act. I put it down to some sort of copy error as it seemed an unfair punishment. You know..and this is a different tack..with all the research on epigentics, I sometimes think that behaviour and things like that, who you are inside, has an expressive genomic response that may be passed down to the next generation, similarly to other sorts of epigenetic inheritance. This may speak to Adams and Eve 'passing on sin' and curses to generations or families. Just a fleeting idea!
  9. My confusion around theist evolutionists is about just how human did a human have to be to gain salvation eg will neanderthal be saved? What about Homo erectus? What about Lucy and Ardi?What was Adam? Was Adam a miraculous mutation from an ape as was Eve where God brought both mutatants to the Garden of Eden to begin the rest of the human race? I have difficulty around their reasoning here. I do not subscribe to any faith as many preach exclusivity, where I beleive the bible offers a resurrection to all into a world, either heavenly or earthly where there will be no longer a need for faith. Likewise if there is an armageddon, signs of some sort will leave no need for faith, where all will see the truth and have an opportunity to choose life or death. I believe God, in the end will be very fair. Many faiths that preach exclusivity will have to pass a final test as illustrated in the parable of the slaves all getting the same pay despite some coming in at the last minute..or will they turn into wicked slaves because of feeling entitled to more pay or beter status because of their hard preaching and other works. So believing in evolution is not a death knell, but just the result of being overcome by the reasonings of man in a corrupted world, as prophesised. Belief in TOE appears to be not as grave a sin in comparison to fornication, adultery, murder and abortion. I can excuse some errors in the bible due to copying, language and the agenda of various translators and copiers. I can cope with some of the text being rearranged and altered a little. I can cope with literal days or periods of time. However, once one starts suggesting the whole of Genesis is based on myth or the geneologies are not factual as to the timing of the rise of mankind, then I ask myself why believe in the bible at all? Yes the bible is only meant to be a spritual guide, not a science book. However, for me, to disregard huge swathes of biblical scripture in Genesis, looses the basis of belief that the bible has any credibility at all. Indeed the bible is accurate on many scientific fronts and I believe will be shown to be even more accurate as time goes on. Theists evolutionists have thrown their hat behind TOE way too soon, as did previous popes. These days, TOE does not look credible at all and is much less convincing now than it was 20 years ago. http://www.raptureforums.com/BibleProphecy/101science.cfm So my biggest concern re theist evolutionists, particularly biblical style God believers, is answering when did mankind become human enough to gain salvation. The responses to this question are usually given relating to language or brain function and are vague at best.
  10. Newhope

    Layers Of Rock

    I am hearing you jason. The article on the Grand Canyon is good. It is reflective of the state of TOE. In the end evolutionary researchers have little clue about much of thier supposed support for TOE, and yet will cite this ficticious support as irrefutable evidence of their claims. The evolutionary garbage bin or delusions past is really quite huge. Jason777 has put up the nail in the coffin really as he has exposed an impossibility without explanation. The inacurracies of dating methods and evidence over confusion of how some formation formed, or didn't, fossils being used to redate strata eg Jehol birds, is also good supporting evidence against rock layering being used to support TOE in any way.
  11. Newhope

    Human "evolution" Requires More Time

    I apologise for my sarcasm at evolutionists expense. More time is the excuse as to why no macroevolution can be observed and is assumed and I should respect this excuse. A word to evolutionists... How about the famous Human chromosome 2? Do evolutionists think time sorted the miracle of fusion despite deleterious effects? The pretty graphs that show the fusion do not demonstrate the swathe of genetic material that was lost or deleted during this fusion. Now that researchers know that Junk DNA is very important to gene expression, one wonders how this event did not result in a deleterious and fatal mutation. Chromosome 2 has been cited as producing a fertility barrier to separate the humans line from the chimp. Honsestly how do researchers expect this to fix in a population, large or small? Chromosome 2 is also related to intelligence, with the clearest distinction between human and ape being high level reasoning and perceptive ability. It appears our genes have a protection against fusion. The results of a forced fusion in mice show deleterious effects.Research cited below. Some creationists believe that the initial humans Adam and Eve did not carry the fusion and that it occured along the way. Given humans have similar genes to many animals this is no problem for creationists. However I find this hard to accept. I think Mankind was created with this CH2 that appears to be a fusion. A gene goes crazy with 2 centromeres. Hence a fusion is actually a double mutation to be sucessful as not only must the fusion overcome the genes natural defence mechanism, it must also deactivate the second centromere, while surviving the loss of genetic material that is deleted. The 'near identical' fusion site is not identical at all, with lost as well as new material being evident at the fusion. I'd like to know what researchers call 'remnants of a 2nd centromere', as I think this is fantasy."Since it is supposed that human chromosome 2 originated by the telomeric fusion of two ancestral primate chromosomes, these findings indicate that not only the telomeric sequences, but also the ancestral centromere (or at least its alphoid sequences), have been conserved". This sounds non credible and is based on the presumption of ancestry as finding the least, alphoid sequences, is straw grabbing. Vestigial telomeres are likewise straw grabbing at data looking for a wish list. "Sequences flanking this telomeric repeat are characteristic of present-day human pretelomeres" mean nothing more than rambling delusions and straw grabbing. 'Are charachterists of' means little unless a researcher needs it to. http://www.springerlink.com/content/v7511kn212157472/ http://www.pnas.org/content/88/20/9051 http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/Telomeres-of-Human-Chromosomes-21041 I do not understand why these evolutionary researchers cannot clearly see evidence for creation in human chromosome 2. It provides a clear example, for me anyway, that mankind are not apes and have never been apes. It can only be because they are not looking for the creation of 'kinds', amd their computational modelling is set up accordingly. I think,evolution requires more than time to be demonstrated. It requires miracles. This is why TOE should be classified as a faith, not a science.
  12. Newhope

    Protein Sequence Homology

    Thanks Fred. As a lay person I like the simple version when there is one. Generally I'd like to know what this relates to. "This capacity to 'tinker' with regulatory DNA probably relates to the complexity, robustness and evolvability of regulatory systems, but cause-and-effect relationships among evolutionary processes and properties of regulatory systems remain a topic of debate. The challenge of understanding the concrete mechanisms underlying cis-regulatory evolution - including the conservation of function without the conservation of sequence - relates to the challenge of understanding the function of regulatory systems in general. Currently, we are largely unable to recognize functionally similar regulatory DNA." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20083321 It appears to be just another area of debate. Conserved function..no conservation of sequence. What a conundrum!!!The thing one can depend on is that no matter what anyone says there will always be research out there to call any evolutionary support for anything into question. This is just one reason why protein sequence homology is no more proof of ancestry than any of it's other hypothesis used as evidence. I also found this gem... "Serious local errors can arise in homology models where an insertion or deletion mutation or a gap in a solved structure result in a region of target sequence for which there is no corresponding template. This problem can be minimized by the use of multiple templates, but the method is complicated by the templates' differing local structures around the gap and by the likelihood that a missing region in one experimental structure is also missing in other structures of the same protein family. Missing regions are most common in loops where high local flexibility increases the difficulty of resolving the region by structure-determination methods. Although some guidance is provided even with a single template by the positioning of the ends of the missing region, the longer the gap, the more difficult it is to model. Loops of up to about 9 residues can be modeled with moderate accuracy in some cases if the local alignment is correct.[3] Larger regions are often modeled individually using ab initio structure prediction techniques, although this approach has met with only isolated success.[31]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homology_modelling To be honest with you all I think it is pointless arguing theoretical model against theoretical model because I actually do not think any of these researchers really know what they are seeing with their models. I think the whole lot of it is non-credible. The idea of simplifying the gene into a handful of enzymes, staining them with dye and comparing these to the other pretty pictures and patterns other species genes produce appears way too simplistic to me...at the other end are ridiculously complicated models that do not really say anything at all. That includes all the talk about what is or isn't conserved or a homolog.
  13. Newhope

    Protein Sequence Homology

    This was good Fred. I could follow your demonstration on protein conservation. I found this below DNA barcoding aims at identifying species with short and highly variable DNA sequences. Since taxonomists have become rare, such short DNA barcodes could facilitate an identification of species without expertise (Barcode of Life Initiative). A preferred barcode marker for animals is the 5' terminus of the subunit I of the mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase c gene (cox1 or COI, around 600 to 800 nucleotides) (Hebert et al. 2003). This DNA sequence for sure, cannot be used in amitochondriate taxa. Also it proved to be too conserved to barcode embryophyte plants. Therefore a set of other DNA barcode markers have been proposed for the Embryophyta (Hollingsworth et al. 2009). As central hubs for the growing masses of data, publicly accessible databases have been designed. They are supposed to link literature, morphological and geographical data and one or several DNA barcodes to each species (e.g. Barcode of Life Database [bOLD]). Such databases thus represent attempts to integrate morphological, biological and DNA-based species concepts. To serve well as a barcode, a DNA sequence has to be highly variable and short, which contradicts the requirements for a good phylogenetic marker, which is supposed to resolve also deeper divergences. Thus, if a group of organisms is largely undersampled, a blastn search with a DNA barcode such as COI against a nucleotide database may yield completely misleading results even on class level. http://www.uni-koeln.de/~aeb25/species2.html I simply believe that evolutionary researchers do not know what they are looking at, nor what their models are saying. Do you reckon this sequence homology in the hands of creationist researchers would be able to work out the 'kinds' that were initially created? I wonder what this kind of research would show without the presumption of ancestry behind it.
  14. Newhope

    Protein Sequence Homology

    I have no scientific credentials and yet I feel that staining a handful of enzymes to produce pretty patterns in a graph cannot reflect the true nature and content of a gene. This article speak to huge genomic regions that are vastly different in chimp-human comparisons, not noted previously. You Can't Make a Monkey Out of Us. Chimpanzees seem almost human, and scientists have maintained for decades that chimps are, in fact, 98.5 percent genetically identical to humans. But the results of a new study call that figure into question, with a finding that there are actually large chunks of the human and chimp genomes that are vastly different. Perlegen's microarray technology shows that the human and chimpanzee genomes are more different than previously thought. In yellow, researchers have circled areas of the genome that have been rearranged over time. http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2003/03/57892# Now see above...large chunks of the human and chimp genome that are vastly different.....! The explanation of rfearranged over time is based on a theoretical assumption of ancestry. Take out the ancestry and you have 2 kinds, with large chunks that are very different. Combine this with other research you get..Human chimp comparisons show huge chunks of DNA that are rearrranged diffefrently, 6% SNP in MtDNA the powerhouse, 30% differences when counting insertions and deletions, 10% difference in genome size, the surface area of the genome differs between chimp and human, 30% difference in Y chromosome comparative to the rest of the genome at 310my of separation, and a mouse has 99% gene homologs in the human. So, although a chimp has two arms, two legs and is a primate one can see there is no need to conclude ancestry. It appear humans may be as close to a chicken as to a chimp. http://www.icr.org/article/5164/288/ However these difference do not appear to be reflected in the usual chimp/human comparisons. The there is information I see like this below "In short, as molecular biology advances, the homology concept loses more ground. Comparisons that have been made of proteins, rRNAs and genes reveal that creatures which are allegedly close relatives according to the theory of evolution are actually totally distinct from each other. A 1996 study using 88 protein sequences grouped rabbits with primates instead of rodents; a 1998 analysis of 13 genes in 19 animal species placed sea urchins among the chordates; and another 1998 study based on 12 proteins put cows closer to whales than to horses." http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/myht_of_homology_05.html Respectfully I say....It appears to me that using genes to ascertain lineages is no more than grabbing at straws, supposing ancient evolutionary trees based on straws, and that is why they do not stand for long and TOE is all about flavour of the month.
  15. Newhope

    Human "evolution" Requires More Time

    I read a limit of 6 mutations per generation per genome. Holistic comparisons say there is a 30% chimp/human difference, and that does not count the difference in genome size or surface. If 'accelerated evolution' had any truth to it we should have legs hanging off our heads like those poor fruitflys. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101105124241.htm I think evolutionists should feel ripped off that primates have not evolved wings, that would have helped our pollution problems. Maybe that is the future....

Important Information

Our Terms