Posted on 08/30/2005 9:31:31 AM PDT by RightWingAtheist
Contrary to what you've been told, not all changes to genes make them defective, most mutations are point mutations which very seldom are anything but neutral. The same thing applies to gene duplication. Inter-breeding occurs only in small exclusive populations, and 'defective' genes are the result of a slightly different mechanism. Look up 'Founder Effect'.
Mutations occur most frequently as neutral to the environment. The next most frequent are those that are deleterious to the organism given the environment, or deleterious given any environment. There is a smaller portion that is beneficial given the environment. If you consider that there are, as a rough estimate, 6 or 7 (measured) mutations per person, there will be approx >=36 x 109 mutations in the human population (not necessarily all different mutations). Even assuming a very small percentage of beneficial mutations, its easy to see that many people will have mutations of varying degree that are not neutral or deleterious.
If you want more information, I can go into much more detail.
If you are not referring to mutations but to the 2LoT, living organisms utilize external energy and excrete 'entropy'.
Okay. I'll try it another way. Have you seen this or this?
The first link is to a FR thread about the Bishop of Eastern Michigan, the Rt. Rev. Edwin M. Leidel, Jr., (the Episcopal Diocese of Eastern Michigan, that is), who has commended to the clergy of his diocese an internet petition that supports the teaching of evolution in public schools.
While this particular Bishop may be of no interest to you, he's been joined by the Rt. Rev. David Andres Alvarez-Velazquez, Bishop of Puerto Rico; the Rt. Rev. Joe Burnett, Bishop of Nebraska; the Rt. Rev. C. Christopher Epting, Presiding Bishop’s Deputy for Interfaith and Ecumenical Relations; the Rt. Rev. Leo Frade, Bishop of Southeast Florida; the Rt. Rev. Wendell N Gibbs, Jr., Bishop of Michigan; the Rt. Rev. Mark Hollingsworth, Jr., Bishop of Ohio; the Rt. Rev. James Kelsey, Bishop of Northern Michigan; the Rt. Rev. Rustin Kimsey, acting Bishop of Navajoland; the Rt. Rev. Robert Moody, Bishop of Oklahoma; the Rt. Rev. F. Neff Powell, Bishop of Southwestern Virginia; the Rt. Rev. Katharine Jefforts Schori, Bishop of Nevada; and the Rt. Rev. Keith Whitmore, Bishop of Eau Claire.
Just fyi.
I think it's like with Scotch.
Nits also grow up to have six (rather than four) legs.
A king has to know these things.
Wow, i never realized how close the D. rotundifolia is to the Dionaea muscipula. Any fool can see the one evolved from the other over countless iterations!
I also love the "are related " and "very likely". Mind you, no proof is provided, just a couple of pictures, claims of being genetically related, and a fanciful story on how it all happened.
And the rock bridge. Bodyblow is an understatement - that argument was an uppercut. I see how cellular gating mechanisms are easily explained by getting overly complex first, then losing some complexity. Duh me.
Duck, Goose, Deer, Moose, Buffalo or Grouse?
My body is 50 but my mind and the mistakes I make are those of an adolescent.
Wrong again.
Joseph Pitton Tournefort (1656-1708) had a popular method (introduced the idea of genus).
John Ray (1628-1705) classified 18,000 species of plans and noted that monocots were different from dicots. It took a century for his contribution to be recognized.
Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778) wrote 14 books about the subject. (Species Plantarum was an attempt to classify everything. He also introduced the two-word version (for example, quercus alba.)
Both Bernard Jussieu (1699-1766) and Antoine Laurent de Jussieu (1748-1836) improved things; they also descriebed the 13 classes of angiosperms.
Augustin Pyrame de Candolle (1778-1841) improved the Jussieu's system and was in tern improved by John Lindley (1799-1865), George Bentham (1800-1844) and Sir Joseph D. Hooker (1817-1911) improved these.
After Darwin, brought a big change; the idea that all present-day species of a given genus had a common ancestor allowed more accurate taxonomies to be developed. There are lots of them: Engler, Bessery, Hutchinson, etc. Evolutionary theory underlies all modern classification systems.
Is that why you spend so much time in the bathroom at Darwin Central?
Sola Scriptura. Funny thing about these church concessions to "science" is this, if you can't trust the Bible on origins, how can you trust it on salvation?
A reason to wear padded leather pants if I ever heard one.
Thanks...I think.
That was a test to see if the proof-readers at DarwinCentral are slacking off, which obviously they were when I snuck that by them!
Damn, you're good!
I tried 2, 1 broke, read the other, and posted on it. So how old is the repost, anyway. You've been trotting it out how long now...Have YOU actually read it? Did you follow the *obvious* evolution of the Venus Flytrap?
No problem! The theory of evolution does not address origins. If you were paying attention, you'd have seen this not more than six or seven thousand times since you signed up.
300?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.