You act as if you have some super-secret, obscure, esoteric knowledge that no one else has. Yes, only you few in the inner, inner circle understand such deep mysteries. Please. This is more sad, delusional nonsense, typical of self-flattering unfortunates caught up in a cult. And indeed, Darwinism IS a self-worshipping cult.
But as to your dismissiveness of the monkey reference, the quote "Monkeys make men" is especially relevant. Can you guess who said it?
Men & Apes
An orangutan called Jenny was the first ape Darwin ever saw—and one of the first ever to appear in the London Zoo. Zookeepers often enhanced the humanlike qualities of these popular exhibits by dressing the animals in children's clothes and teaching them human habits. But Darwin would have seen a resemblance between Jenny and his own offspring without the costuming. When Jenny was angry at her keeper, he wrote, the animal "threw itself down on its back & kicked & cryed like a naughty child.—Do monkeys cry?-they whine like children."
Almost as soon as he started thinking about evolution, Darwin understood this: what applied to plants and animals also applied to people. We had evolved, too. "It is absurd to talk of one animal being higher than another," he wrote in one notebook; in another, "Monkeys make men." At a time when most of his fellow citizens took for granted that we had been created in the image of the divine, such thinking was outrageous—the most radical of Darwin's many radical ideas.
Brothers Under the Skin
[Huxley drawing of ape skeletons compared to man did not reproduce HERE. They commonly referred to apes and monkeys as "Brothers Under the Skin."]
Biologist and teacher Thomas Huxley was known as "Darwin's bulldog." The illustration above is from his book on human evolution, published eight years before Darwin's Descent of Man. A gifted and provocative speaker, Huxley often lectured on evolution with his arm draped affectionately over a gorilla skeleton.
Darwin himself said that men come from monkeys, and he said it long, long before I pointed it out.
Brian, for a man who imagines himself to be so intellectually superior, you sure don't know very much about your own subject, now do you?
I repeat, no one is mystified about the subject under discussion, no one that is except you, apparently.
And I would ask you, IS transposition EVER beneficial, and if so, where? And even if you can demonstrate such a rare occurrence, how is that relevant? The odds of bits of stray DNA code adding creative information to a gene sequence that determines brain size and complexity have to be beyond astronomical. This is especially so, in view of the fact that such an amazing thing would have to happen thousands if not tens of thousands of times.
This is why REAL scientists who actually practice science by following the evidence, rather than fake scientists who "think" by consensus, are becoming very sceptical about Darwinism.
For you to pursue such a tenuous connection with gene jumping to "prove" evolution is to skip the sublime and dive headlong into the absurd.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
"Everyone knows", ey? Why don't you ask your congregation on their way out this weekend if evolution means that monkeys turn into men. Let us know what the responses are.
Nevertheless, finally we are getting to the heart of the matter. We've established now that there are a variety of mechanisms for mutation, one of which is transposition. We both agree on this. And I've asked you now what happens when transposition (or any type of mutation, for that matter) is not detrimental, and you claim in this last post, that mutation is NEVER beneficial. Am I interpreting your post correctly?
Again, is transposition (i.e. the action of a jumping gene) EVER beneficial? It's a yes or no question.
Finally, your analogy to computer code is wrong, but let's hold off on that discussion for just a little while.
Oh and thanks for the compliment. "Intelligent", oh stop, I'm blushing.