Joined: Nov. 2011
|Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 12 2011,16:20)|
|Show me a person who doesn't know what a kinkajou looks like, and I'll show you a person who wouldn't recognize a kinkajou if one was chewing on their face.|
Your IDiot buddies say it's not possible for evolution to produce "novel genetic material"? Fine. What are the distinguishing characteristics of "novel genetic material" that would allow your IDiot buddies to recognize the stuff when they see it? You might want to offer up a challenge for your IDiot buddies...
Here's a nucleotide sequence:
gat tgg aag caa tag gag agg tag gga ttg gac atg gcc ggc cac tat tcg cga gga tcc gat gat cct agt ggt atc att tac caa tga
Is that sequence, or any part(s) of that sequence, composed of "novel genetic material"? Show your work.
Remeber these people hold behe's work and the bible next to each other.
So in the example of the lizard, they say yes it may have mutated but no new novel functions or genetic material is involved. It's just epigenics.
What they say is show us that the DNA of the original lizard and the "new" lizard has been totaly sequenced and show us where there is added information. Until you do so you are assuming that there is without a drop of proof.
This is a comfortable place from them to be as DNA sequencing is expencive and they know it won't be done on a lizard. Actually Ioseb launched a challenge and said prove to me with a study that this is an example in which novel genetic matrial is added in the "new" lizard and I'll bow down to you all.
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin