Originally posted by BlackJackal
[And 10 years ago we thought that the tonsils served absolutely no purpose but now people are beginning to understand what purpose that they serve.
Tonsils are strategically located near the entrance to the breathing passages where they can catch incoming infections. They sample bacteria and
viruses. After sampling the germs they then help form antibodies to those germs as part of the body's immune system to resist and fight future
infections.
I may be wrong and I will admit it after scientists remove the non-coding DNA and study the effects on the organism. If this proves to have no effect
on the organism then I will admit that I am wrong but until then I say prove it.
The organisms do it themselves. There are bacteria that can remove the junk DNA from their genomes. That means that there are at least some sections
that serve no real purpose. This, however, does not matter much for our discussion. We don't care if it has a function, we care if the junk DNA is
morphologically related. This does not seem the case. A change in a broken copy of the hemoglobin gene never hurt anyone. If the genes are not related
to the form of the organism we can use it for reliable comparison. You didn't even try to address the cytochrome or retrovirus DNA, because it simply
works.
I have looked at the study and I don’t see what all the fuss is about. Creationist have never argued against adaptability in organisms. The E. Coli
were put into a glucose-limitied median so if they did not learn to adapt they would die. The E Coli slowed their reproduction during the median
generations as they learned to adapt. After they learned to adapt they started reproducing faster again. In the title and the conclusion it refers
to parallel changes in gene expression, which is just a neutral change. The author does not prove that a beneficial mutation has occurred just that
the organism adapted to the new environment via a parallel change.
This experiment proves a positive adaption to the environment. Now imagine two totally different environments. One with only glucose, one with only
glycogen. Now let the E. Coli bacteria adapt there for, let's say, 100000 generations. Is it so difficult to understand that these two colonies
can't mate anymore in the end. That they have adapted so much that they can no longer produce living offspring with a member of the other colony.
Then we have two new species, macroevolution. Everyone who believes microevolution, believes macroevolution.
Robert May is a UK Chief Scientist. In New Scientist magazine (July 1, 2000) on page 5 he stated, “We share half our genes with the
banana.” One can only guess (with a fertile imagination) what the common ancestor between people and bananas looked like In addition, there are fish
that have 40% the same DNA as people, but hopefully no evolutionist would claim that the fish are 40% human – or people are half bananas.
How about them apples or should I say banna’s
So? They do have a common ancestor and common metabolic pathways. Glycolyse, citric acid cycle, etc. The cells are not too different either. In my
opinion this proves evolution. Bananas and human have a common ancestor. It was just a tiny archeabacteria, but it was a common ancestor. The
metabolism, which a lot of genes code for, hasn't changed much.
That idea is why I don’t even consider abiogenesis, it is way too far-fetched. And it has never been duplicated in the lab.
It is a problem that it has never been duplicated in the lab. My 100 million years was only a guess though, some calculations I provided in a link of
an earlier post calculate that a self-replicating enzyme is formed every week. The problem is that there is no good alternative to abiogenesis.
Inteligent Design is no scientific theory and it is not falsifiable. What if we show that abiogenesis can happen? It doesn't matter for Intelligent
Design. Nothing can falsify Intelligent Design.
