Posted on 02/19/2003 12:21:30 PM PST by vannrox
An asteroid strike. A radioactive, mutation causing, asteroid strike. Or, maybe, Klingons.
You meant to say: a radioactive, mutation causing, works exactly the same on everybody, asteroid strike.
Hahaha. I don't know why they keep wanting to debate it. Doesn't settled mean settled?
Have a nice long sleep. Ever hear of Rip VanWinkle?
then the forest (( understanding // truth -- LIGHT )) !
Hi everyone . . .
I am f.Christian - - -
a falling down recovering evolutionist // liberal // globalist ==== now I hate the stuff // lies // NWO !
Not any more since . . . FR saved (( link )) - - - me !
(( lest we forget ))
Cheers,
PB
I am f.Christian - - -
a falling down recovering evolutionist // liberal // globalist - - -
not any more since . . . FR saved me (( link ))=== now I hate the stuff // lies ! !
Hmmmmm... I thought that certain people have "proved" given evidence (a just-so story) that if a gene is found in one bacteria, it functioned in a similar manner in another bacteria. That is how something is made reducibly complex.
The fact is these scientists do not have the vaguest idea of when it appeared. All they know is that chimps and other monkeys nor anything they call 'primates' has it so they put the age back as far as they can. This assertion of over 20 million years also pushes back the man/chimp break back some ten million years farther which shows again that science keeps showing that man and monkey if at all related (as evolutionists would like us to believe) is a very, very, very far relation. It also gives them an excuse for spending another 150 years looking for the 'missing link' they never seem to find.
Yup, can't invite opponents of evolution to the discussion. Evolutionists are too lame to hold up their side of a debate.
Great point, the only definite thing in the article is that humans have a totally different gene which is expressed in the testes and which would kill other species if they have it. This seems to make humans quite unique if you ask me but evolutionists have to add tons of meaningless verbiage to try to confuse the scientifically ascertained facts.
You really need some reading comprehension. First of all this is not in any way a duplicated gene according to the article but two genes joined together. Of course they do not have the vaguest idea how this happened. It is all assumptions which would be true if evolution is ever proven to be true - and there is no such proof. That this joining would have killed our ancestors furthermore is proof that it could not have occurred without many other things happening at the same time which would have enabled the organism to survive this new combination. So no, it is no proof of evolution, but of intelligent design, of many things coming together to produce something totally new. Note also that this article is so lame that it does not even tell what this gene does. Note also that all the evo stuff is absolute unsubstantiated nonsense. The only known fact here is that this gene does not occur in any other species and that it would cause cancer on other species if they had it. Hardly a 'proof' of evolution.
What evidence of evolution is there in this article? Evolution is about descent and the article explicitly states that no other species has this gene and if it did it would kill it. How can you call that evidence of evolution?
You are right, it does not.
Doc
But of course, this hack being an evolutionist instead of a scientist, goes around making high sounding pronouncements instead of working to learn the facts. This is another example of why evolution is not science. These hacks do no real research, they just go around looking for something, anything they can twist and turn to sound as evidence for evolution.
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.