RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

  Topic: Darwinist Misdirection, Evolutionists guide to Darwinist errors< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Richard Simons

Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2009,06:46   

There are not that many distinct genes, most are duplicated among many species. New ones occur only a few times per year. So one can calculate how long it would take for humans to acquire those genes that distinguish them from other apes. Humans were about a trillionth of a trillionth of the world’s population of organisms so the expected time is in the range of a trillion, trillion years. The universe is only about 13 billion years old.

Advanced species of necessity have internal fluids to provide the necessaries of life to internal cells. Since these fluids are nutritious they periodically get bacterial populations. This leaves all cells of an individual of the advanced species with the same access to genetic material from another species that is enjoyed by bacteria in the case of antibiotic resistance transfer. Since advanced species are descended from bacteria with the ability to acquire genetic material there is the expectation that such a useful ability would be retained. The distribution of genes between species makes it abundantly clear that this is actually the case.

There's an idea here that I've not seen before, that there is a relatively fixed number of genes in the world and that they are spread around by symbiotic/parasitic bacteria. You should try this out amongst the non-cognoscente over at UD. It will probably 'take' amongst them. I don't think many will notice that, in effect, you are saying that common descent means that genes can easily be transferred, and therefore we do not need to use common descent to explain shared genes.
The number of genes in advanced species is tens of thousands more than in earliest life. The substitution of one allele of a gene by another only alters the effect of that gene, it does not change the number of genes (or even of genetic mechanisms).

I would drop this section as most of them already assume that mutations can't 'add information' (and who knows exactly what they mean by that?) and even without it the comment is overly long.

They also love abbreviations for things that no-one can really define or explain, especially if there is a suggestion of computers and programming about them, so I see a good future for DGSE.

If it's submitted as a comment over at UD, I'd ignore the comment from RupertG as people there are not overly fond of actual links or citations.

Editted to make a little more specific.

All sweeping statements are wrong.

  14 replies since June 16 2009,03:36 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]