Evolution? How?

Mumbo jumbo that sounds reasonable for the uneducated.

For the basic explanation. Because the structure is created from another DNA strand it isn't normally possible to insert one letter into the strand.
The letters match up with the previous strand. Most errors occur in mismatching when an AG might attach instead of a CT.
Frame shifting as you described does occur but it is actually pretty destructive and the result won't survive. The normal frame shifting involves 3 letters so the rest of the strand does stay the same. There are at least 4 other ways for DNA to mutate that are more common then the simplistic way you attempt to claim proves that mutations can't occur.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?query_key=6&db=Books&dopt=&page=0&dispmax=20&WebEnv=0fvWBYz2hnvaxcJfWYK_eZ2bBkYvq_22ZoePF1disP6sI9rZOrOWAL&WebEnvRq=1&rid=iga.section.2706

I thought this post was quite revealing.

It's clear that you simply don't believe what science is telling us. You live with and use the products of science, computers, cars, bridges, etc, and I assume you will credit those scientists and engineers with success in their field (unless you are afraid to fly or drive over bridges), but when those same scientists tell you with certainty that a rock is millions of years old, you simply toss out their expertise and claim they know no more than any other stated opinion.

It's already clear that you believe in magic (supernatural deities) and such, and I understand that from a philosophical perspective this is a supportable position. But it always amazes me when people who choose to view the world the way you do, so readily accept the benefits of civilization and science and technology, but then selectively reject the parts they don't like. It seems inconsistent and irrational to me.

Bili,
By the way. Doesn't your addition of an "A" into the sequence prove you wrong on your earlier statement of there is no evidence of addition of genetic material?

Now you are just looking foolish arguing against yourself.

c'mon, now. his argument is that there is essentially no way in which you can have an accumulation of new, useful genetic information -- as opposed to noise. i don't buy it -- genes can get duplicated within genomes and mutate independently until they are different products, as has happened in a very short time (in geologic time) to give us different forms of hemoglobin/myoglobin...

and that of course doesn't address the origins question, though fruitful research is being done looking at self replicating, "nonliving" molecules, and the fairly recent revelation that the functional bits of the ribosome are its RNA bits suggests the possibility of an "RNA universe," as they call it.

but try at least to attack the argument on the grounds in which it is presented.

When you think that genes are complex but they are only made of four parts ordered in different patterns. It makes sense that over millions of years they have been mixed up or shuffled. It is the law of probability. Once organisms became specialized the blurred lines between species widened and the identity of a kind of species solidified.

Bili

I suppose God makes uranium 235 and other radio isotopes just appear as if they have half lives of billions of years to confound those of us who have the temerity to ask questions?

He also sprinkled all those random differences in noncoding DNA in such a way that they appear to confirm phylogenies developed by embryological, paleological, anatomical, and immunological means. He's devious, that one...

http://rexred.com/genheb.html

here is what I have done so far

I will be changing this page more. I am going to add more transliterated Hebrew words. I am going to add color too to make it more readable. I will be italicizing the words that need to be done so.
I am doing this so it can be discussed in more detail.

Copy this html to you computer but overwrite it in a few days because it will be more exhaustive.

not only devious patio, but He tells three different people that they are special, his "chosen" then lets them fight it out among themselves.

I think its some sort of survival of the fittest religion. He was clearly a believer in evolution.

We learn in Job that he's a betting god, no?

hey patiodog. Shouldnt you be studyin? I need a good vet here, we seem to be having a mastitis problem with some of the ewes and we cant figger it out.Many twin lambs and always one udder seems to be showing initial mastitis Were milking the bad udder out and giving antibiotics but still happening.

Bilk is stuck within what hes read in AIG, hes not gonna hear about gene families , STRs ,. He is correct in one area but for the wrong reason , there is a natural tendency to keep the coding DNA within exons to a smaller number , but this happens by natural selection. So the blind economy is preserved between unrelated species (like mice and humans) I saw from the Celera data that for chromosome 20 (66M base pairs) there are only 1.5% coding genes, 24% interons and the rest , either STR (mobile) sequences or a lower number of other nonmobile repeats. The transposon, I guess ws found in 2004 (Im not sure of the date). The only parts not seen are he centromeres and the telomeres. When we compare the same chromosome from a mouse to a human, the amount of genic substitution, replacement and gene families is amazing. We still reatin ,many mousie features but only " advance" by less than 60% difference. Much of the genic addition is in the STRs , which , by duplication and position can become coding. I like parados call for bilis attention . I went back and saw that yeh, bilk is arguing with himself now.


Bilik, if you think that stratigraphers , finding a fossil , blurt out age differences , makes me wonder how much science background youve had. I know your religious belief is strong but , you have to realize that most scientists arent idiots. If there would be a fossil discovery wed first identify it to try to type it in the grand scheme of linnean typology. Then wed look at the rocks in context. For eg, is the fossil in place as a death assemblage or is it carried to a final place by disarticulation. Does the rock contain the fossil or did the fossil come way later on a bed of preemplaced sed. Does the fossil even make a cast in the rock(this is a good idea that the rock matrix and the fossil are contemporaries. We then begin to age the rock by stratigraphic sequencing (what overlies what and what is cut by what) Among the last things done are age dating by radionuclides because, in a sed rock, it could be all over the place if the sediment is composed of Grenville sands mixed with Triassic organic muds. Nobody would be so dim as to get into a disagreement about such a divergent age . Rocks of 2000 years are raely indurated nd rocks of 2000000 years are usually leached and devoid of specific ions. So , youve not thought it through very well. I can understand that this is the simple minded approach that Creationists take , thats why our peer review process is a bit more demanding.

One of the bestand classic texts of this kind of 'strat dating" is by Blatt et al called principles of Stratigraphic Analyses. Its a 1991 original and its gone through a second edition to include a lot of new data.



As far as the totally assinine difference speculation for stratigraphic positioning

Well, f-man, about all I can do for a sheep is knock 'em down and trim their hooves -- and even that ends up being pretty comical.

Was really struck in puppy embryology last year just how profound the homologies are. Development really does recapitulate phylogeny. (How else to explain three different sets of kidneys at three different times in development? -- one pair homologous to those of a fish, the next to those of amphibs and reptiles, and the final pair being the mammalian kidneys we know and love.)

really? I didn't know that..

<reading along here, agree with pdog, farmer, etal.>

p dog- They did a CT scan of a dromaeosaur found in Australia at "dinosaur cove" near Adelaide AND the really anoxic fine grained sediments preserved casts and molds of lots of internal soft organs. They could clearly see the kidneys, lungs, repro organs, eggs and heart and the real neat thing was that, because the time period was after Gondwana split Australia was then nearer the poles and the little guys optic lobe was huuge compared to South American dromaeosaurs. In the less than 10 million years since Gondwana busted upTheyd evolved an optic lobe that was adapting to the seasonal low light conditions.

Here's something on elephants that supports farmerman's theory on evolution. http://members.aol.com/kphairdeal/elephants.html

We learned about the "dasies" of Table Mountain in Cape Town on our visit. They are rodents that are supposed to be related to the elephant.
"The animals of Table Mountain are not quite as plentiful as the plants, but are still varied and interesting. If you go up the Cableway you are sure to see "dassies", large rodents whose nearest genetic relative is supposed to be the elephant! There are many types of small antelope, and it is remarkable to watch them springing down the cliffs. The most fascinating animals on the mountain are probably the insects, butterflies and moths which have developed remarkable partnerships with the plants."

It's also called a Rock Hyrax.



They have very interesting feet:

i thought that was what i had said.

indeed. the one thing you forget is that the things you describe as
"products of science, computers, cars, bridges, etc, " are testable. if they break then the science is bad. if the bridge falls, build another one just LIKE IT? or build it differently?
with geology it is not the same. you say it is. but you have no evidence. how can you TEST that it is 30MYO? i can TEST the bridge by standing on it. if it still stands then that product/result of that technology is valid. if it falls, it isn't (obviously you haven't seen any documentries of "ancient" suspension bridges).

idiot. is the word you're looking for.