| Subject: |
|
Jumpin' Genes! Only the Literate Need Apply |
| Name: |
|
John |
| Date Posted: |
|
Jan 22, 08 - 10:18 PM |
| IP Address: |
|
67.164.106.140 |
| Email: |
|
burningtruth@rock.com |
| Message: |
|
Sir:
You falsely accuse me by saying "you have changed your tune with respect to how mutations occur."
No such thing. Do you even understand what the word "primarily" means? Your seriously inaccurate response indicates you do not. I will provide the definition of that word, mostly for the benefit of other readers, since you seem to be unable to comprehend even the simplest wording:
pri·mar·i·ly (prī-mâr'ə-lē, -měr'-)
adv.
1) Chiefly; mainly: a scholastic program primarily for seniors; a primarily middle-class neighborhood.
I never said there were no other causative factors behind mutations, nor would I ever say that, and I consider your assumption to be wholly unwarranted by the actual contents of my post. Here is what I said:
"The only change possible under Darwinian theory, is by DNA mutations caused PRIMARILY by background radiation in the atmosphere."
Is that not crystal clear? "Primarily" does NOT mean solely or only.
I am simply saying that mutations in ages past, when there was no man-made pollution, no insecticides, no chemicals by the multiplied millions polluting our air, water, and food, were CHIEFLY, MAINLY caused by background radiation. Just because an assertion is made for a primary cause, in no way precludes any number of secondary causes. How much plainer can I make it?
Nowhere did I EVER suggest that mutations are caused solely by background radiation. And you cannot point to any statement saying such.
Comprehension of the above requires only simple logic.
But since you have no real argument, you have to put words in my mouth that I never said, and then respond to what I never said or even implied as if I had said it. That is called a straw man argument. Please try it somewhere else, it won't work here.
Further, you refuse to even attempt to answer how the small (380-450cc) primitive brain of Australopithecus, with no guiding external agent, can morph into a sophisticated human brain weighing 1400cc, with no creative addition of DNA code.
Even more troubling is that you don't even understand what I am asserting. I am saying that adaptions that cause an organism to expand into higher levels of biological hierarchy, of necessity require creative incorporation of new, higher levels of DNA code. There is a quantitative and qualitative difference in a sub-human ape-like brain and an advanced human brain. What accounts for that difference?
In other words, WHERE DOES ALL THAT SOPHISTICATED CODE COME FROM?
That is the burning question. And jumping genes is NOT the answer.
You ask me to find you a reference for such a question, but you again miss the point entirely. Assumptions are made on a daily basis that profound changes in size, shape, or form can be achieved without the purposeful alignment of billions of nucleotides in the DNA. Neither nature nor species provides it, so how does it come about?
The obvious answer is that it does not. And it does not, because Darwin was wrong, and his devotees are wrong. It is really just that simple.--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Replying to: John,
Your post is very long, and actually I believe it could have been summed up in about three sentences. For the sake of conciseness, I will make just a couple of counterpoints.
First, you fail to support even a single sentence in your entire post with a reference to the primary literature. For that reason alone, debating you is basically a waste of time. How can I argue with "Nuh-uh, I'm right and you're wrong!"?
What I wrote in my last post was not MY opinion, it was the opinion of the greater scientific community. I directly quoted many peer-reviewed scientific journals. If you don't believe what I wrote, read the article, then e-mail the corresponding authors of the articles. They'll tell you what they meant, then they'll provide the data to back up what they wrote. Go ahead, send them an e-mail right now. Then send the journal editors an e-mail and ask them for the names of the reviewers. Contact them and ask them why they accepted the paper for publication. Finally, get in touch with specialists in that scientific field and ask why they have not written an article refuting what was originally concluded. These are all things you could do tonight. I've listed my references.
Second, you have changed your tune with respect to how mutations occur. Fantastic. Yes I agree, there are many ways that mutations occur. We're moving forward.
The rest of your post really is not worth responding to. You perseverate on this idea of "creative incorporation of new DNA code". Find me a reference that shows how the theory of evolution requires the CREATIVE incorporation of new DNA code. |
|
Replies:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
Forum
bravenet.com