>
>I am going to ask a very naive question because I am no geneticist.
>
Neither am I. I just like to read and when I say something stupid there are
lots of people here who can jump on me and correct my erroneous ways.
>Transmissions break after they have been designed and put into cars.
>What evidence is there that the genes in question did not "break" at
>some point in time after the various species arrived on the scene, and
>what are the implications of this possibility?
>
Any biologists out there who want to correct me, please do.
Here is why your suggestion won't work. A gene consists of
control part-coding part A-junk-coding part B
The gene is then converted to RNA and processed. The control part is removed,
the junk is removed and the two coding parts joined. Then a tail is put on
the RNA version of the gene. It looks like:
coding part A-coding part B-tail
It is this RNA version which directs the formation of proteins.
Occasionally however, the processed RNA is back transcribed into DNA and
re-inserted into the nuclear genome. But the re-insertion lacks the control
part and junk of the original and has the tail. Thus, the pseudogene looks
like:
coding part A-coding part B-tail
Fact: the two coding parts in the pseudo-gene are nearly identical to the
original gene coding portions. The original gene is found sometimes on
another chromosome. The fact that the pseudogene is a processed version of the
original is quite clear. The control and junk regions have been removed. This
is an insertion. The fact that the tail portion is not contained in the
original would mean that if you want to explain the same pseudogene at the
same location in man, gorilla, gibbon and chimp by independent common
mistakes, you must assume that 8 deletions occurred independently at exactly
the same place (deleting the control and junk regions in each species), and
that 4 insertions independently occurred at a location nearby (inserting the
tail sequence). The way I calculate this, the odds are 1 chance out of 3.3 x
10^114. If you believe that this can happen then surely you can believe in
evolution. :-)
Without the control sequence, the pseudogene is totally useless and cannot be
converted to a protein.
[snip]
>GR>Let's hear your theory of how this a
>GR>happened. Where was Adam created? When did it happen? Where was the flood?
>GR>Was it global or local? Where did the flood waters come from?Where did the
>GR>go? When was the flood? Where do the fossil men fall into your theory? How
>GR>did the fossils form? When did they form? Was there animal death beforethe
>GR>flood? Before Adam? Why are their no amphibian traces in the Cambrian. Why
>GR>are noliving forms of macroscopic life found prior to the Upper Cretaceous
>GR>Why are there no modern mammal species prior to the Oligocene? Why do
>GR>whalesand dolphins not appear in the Devonian strata with the remains of
>GR>other large fish?
>
>GR>And why is there no evidence of grass on the planet prior to the Miocene?
>GR>Neither pollen grain nor blade of grass. But there are lots of plant
> fossil
>
>I guess this is what is meant by "attack mode"... i.e. if you don't like
>part of my theory then let's hear yours.
Absolutely. This is attack mode. Let me tell you a story. Back in 1978 I was
complaining to my wife about several facts that the ICR crowd didn't explain
and facts that they just flat got wrong (like the amount of juevenile water
put into the atmosphere by volcanoes which H.Morris claims means that the
seas can be no older tha 340 million years old).
Anyway, my bride, looked me straight in the eyes and asked, "Can you do any
better at explaining it?" Silence ensued. I couldn't do any better!
Dumbstruck, I trotted back to my office, tail between my legs, to ponder how
to explain the data of geology. Prior to my wife's gut punch, I had been
content to do nothing but criticise (read tear down). From that moment, I
decided that I would try to build a theory which would account for the data.
It took me 15 years to come up with a view (the present one) which I believe
actually works. ( 5 of those years I did no research having given up)
My point is, that criticism without an alternative is nothing but stone
throwing. It is saying "I don't like your view, but I can't think of anything
else."
It is amazing how quiet it gets everytime I ask someone to actually explain
the data of geology and biology within a biblical perspective. The silence is
even more deafening when the person has been a critic of what I am offering.
Let me further say, that the questions I raised above are perfectly legitimate
questions for which someone can legitimately expect an answer. Is Neanderthal
preflood or post flood? Is he a descendant of Adam or something prior to
Adam's creation? Why did he make flutes, build huts, build patios and walls?
If you believe that God really worked in space-time then you must attempt some
answer to these very interesting questions. Someone who presumes to teach in
the area of apologetics ought to have some idea of how to answer these things.
If one doesn't, then what is he teaching?
glenn