Posted on 07/29/2002 6:35:04 PM PDT by Tribune7
(Psst...these cause random mutations).
Only a small part of the population in these malaria infested areas has the mutation. How come others without it survive?
There are likely many genetic factors which contribute to malaria resistance. The mutant hemoglobin allele is simply one of them. Also as you know the homozygous condition is dangerous.
Answer that one wise guy.
I'd say I am more of a "Goodfella".
Another blatant lie. No one in the over a dozen years since he first proposed it has been able to show that the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex. And BTW, no one, least of all Darwin, has ever shown that the eye is not irreducibly complex either. However, I have shown, quite clearly that the developmental process of an organism is a program and hence not subject to random evolutionary stochastic alteration.
A very simple request.
Run a BLAST search on virtually *any* human gene and you will call up plenty of homologous genes in other organisms - flies, yeast, worms even bacteria in some cases.
Because the wrong mutation in a gene will destroy the functioning of a gene. An average gene has some over a thousand base pairs of DNA. Changing a single one of those base pairs can totally destroy the functioning of the gene. A few, very few may be neutral or perhaps enhance the functioning of it, but the chances of that are overwhelmingly against it. To realize how exact genes have to be just consider that the mad cow disease is caused not even by a change in a gene, but by a change in the shape of the protein made from a gene. That is how exact the product of genes has to be.
No, but I grew up with the Eagles, which was once almost the same thing. ONCE, you know. :-)
Creationist: If one can somehow disprove evolution, then God MUST exist.
There could be. It's not my view. I think I can trace my skepticism in evolution to my school days, when I was taught (uncritically) that the development of life began with abiogenesis (albeit it wasn't called that) followed by a poorly presented explanation of evolution --which I accepted until much of what I was taught was shown to be untrue, even falisfied.
Added to that was a strictly enforced ban on any mention of the Creator.
I suspect if they were to allow the Bibles back, and some innocuous prayer and some Christmas carols, much of the hostility in this debate would go away (along with a lot of other social pathologies.).
On the other hand, I sometimes think that if I went to a strictly religious school and all mention of evolution was banned, the odds would be good that I would be a raving atheist. So there is a line which must be walked.
I guess I'm not really as much of an anti-evolutionist as I sometimes think, although I'm very skeptical of common descent, and I think the unguided development of life is ridiculous idea.
Another point. I think there are a lot of holes in the theory. If they are filled and the theory is found to be solid, that's a good thing. If they can't be filled, however, it is even more important to understand that. A skeptical attitude -- by which I don't mean a ban on its teaching, or research or a doctrinarial approach that it must be wrong -- towards evolution might go a long way in furthering our knowledge.
It's late and I'm starting to ramble. Thanks for the answer.
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.