didn't you read any of the posts about drift? Junk genes don't evolve by
natural selection. They just collect mutations. (but of course you know
this, because you are a microbiologist) A bunch of junk genes is like the
clutter in a junk drawer. Someday some piece of that stuff may be useful for
something. Maybe not. Lots of species have died out because they simply did
not have the genetic diversity to meet an evolutionary challenge.
>How could such a neutral gene survive millions or billions of years without
>being eliminated by genetic drift? [Rude ad hominem deleted]
how do you know the useful gene has been around for millions of years? How
do you know it didn't mutate last week?
>Susan Brassfield:
>how convenient. We can't ask for where the stuff was published. Can you
supply a copy of the original paper? Why didn't they resubmit elsewhere?
>
>My comments:
>I have copies of the unpublished manuscripts, but I am not going to give
them >to anyone as openly hostile as you are.
I think we may have a mote/beam problem here.
> As for publishing elsewhere, you evolutionists have made that impossible.
My >colleagues now have reputations as creationists, so they cannot get
published in >any scientific journal.
there are no creationist journals that wouldn't love to have a well-research
solidly scientific article that supports their position?
>My comments:
>It is still rank hypocracy to demand proof from someone whose word for its
>truthfulness you'll never believe. [rude ad hominem deleted]
you'll just have to take it on faith. Any evidence backing your claims will
be examined and discussed.
>Susan Brassfield:
>since "email.com" is a phony address, how is that possible?
>
>My comments:
>Are you really so naive or are you playing dumb? I obviously meant my
>credibility here on this group.
*I* can destroy your credibility on this group? You've already done such an
excellent job of it!
>Susan Brassfield:
>I never knew I had such power.
>
>My comments:
>You must be playing dumb. From what I have said, you should realize that
all you would have to do is tell my department chairman that I am a design
theorist, and he would take the necessary steps to have me kicked out of the
univeristy.
from just the word of a graphic designer in Oklahoma? wow! I don't even have
a degree!
>Susan Brassfield:
>I often wonder about that. I've caught many creationists in lies over the
years and wondered at the time--*why*. Why lie? Why is Genesis so important,
that it's ok to violate one of the commandments in the very next chapter?
>
>My comments:
>No true Christian has lied to you, but you simply refuse to accept what
they say is true, so you assume they must be lying.
nope. They've actually lied to me and I caught them at it.
>Susan Brassfield:
>You haven't looked [for evidence refuting Behe]. I've seen it and I'm not a
>scientist.
>
>My comments:
>This from someone who didn't know that radiocarbon dating is accurate out
to >100,000 years. Such arrogance. Young lady, I am a scientist and I've
looked >and I can't find it. [rude ad hominem deleted]
I'm neither young nor very lady-like. But I have seen refutations of Behe.
try here as a starting point:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/publish.html
>Susan Brassfield:
>dolphins do not superficiallly resemble sharks--certainly not to a biologist.
>
>My comments:
>Of course they do, or do you deny convergent evolution?
of course not. But dolphins and sharks don't resemble each other at all--not
to a biologist (or to a 6 year old in the aquatic park either)
>Susan Brassfield:
>humans and chimpanzees only have a 2% difference genetically. That isn't
>"fundamentally" different.
>
>My comments:
>Even Jacob Bronowski, an ardent evolutionist, accepted that humans were
fundamentally different from apes. Read his lecture "The Long Childhood" in
_The Ascent of Man_.
as someone else pointed out this was published before the genetic
comparision of chimps and humans.
[more rude ad hominems deleted]
>Susan Brassfield:
>that is exactly *not* what Behe is saying. He is saying that if any part of
the system is absent, then the whole thing collapses. The system is
"irreducible" which means no parts can be removed--the system can't be reduced.
>
>My comments:
>Read what Behe said about hemostasis. That most of its different parts
could be lost and yet it would still function as long as the IC core
remained intact.
right. And it is the *core* that is IC not the whole system.
>Susan Brassfield:
>The Queen of Romania speaks: carbon-14 dating only goes back to about
10,000 years. As a scientist I'm surprised you don't know that.
>
>My comments:
>So much for you having any claim of knowing what you are talking about.
End >of discussion.
I apologized in another post for going too far with the c-14 thing.
End of discussion :-)
Susan
--------
Life is short, but it is also very wide.
http://www.telepath.com/susanb