: bzrd here: : All living things have chromosomes. To some extent all living things share genetic information; for ex. the ability to produce ATP, or the enzyme DNA hydrogenase etc. There is a commonality in nature which is indicative of a common Creator; why would God create a plant that uses chromosomes to pass on genetic information and some other means [of genetics] in animals? It is known for ex. that man and chimpanzees are 98% simular genetically speaking, indeed, we are very simular phenotypically. However, if you consider the mutation rate of the chimp genome, and that the 2% difference represents 22,000 neucleotides [base pairs] then extrapolate back in time, you will find that our common ancester lived about 2,000,000,000 yrs ago. Additionally, there has yet to be observed a single point mutation that results in an increase in information. I am not saying that God could not have used evolution as a means of Creation; but why do we assume that He did, when the evidence is to the contrary?

: Greg: : The evidence is not to the contrary. You assume it is based on our lack of information, not on the information available. It is not that all life has chromosomes, it is that they are the Same chromosomes. Some lower mammalian species have the Same chromosomes, some do not. The ones that do, have the Same chromosomes as the animal species that we share the Same chromosomes with, which have the Same chromosomes as the reptilian species that we share chromosomes with, which have the Same chromosomes as the Aquatic Species that we share chromosomes with, which have the Same chromosomes as the plant species that we share chromosomes with. Thus we can tell by who has the Same chromosomes and who does not, where the branches of Evolution took place, and who we are linked to through our Evolutionary Heritage. All living things only share genetic information from the common link in their heritage, which at some point is common to all Life, but only the common link is shared. That is what genes are all about and what makes for the myriad variety of Life. :o)

: bzrd here: I believe what you are referring to is genetic convergence. I am not sure how one would use convergence as a means of supporting Darwinism. For ex. how does Neanderthal fit into the evolutionary paradigm? Contrary to the efforts of past researchers to make these individuals out to be apes, we have found that they buried their dead, practiced metallurgy, had larger brains, used art as a means of expression, almost certainly possesed language skills, had better teeth, more efficient enzyme systems, stronger bones and quite possibly lived longer. Yet according to the evolutionary time-scale they pre-dated us by many millenia. Neanderthal presents a significant dillema for the evolutionists; if they were our ancestors, then we have de-evolved, if they are not our ancestors, where did we come from?

: Greg: : What I am talking about is Evolution, and I thought I already explained the Neanderthal to you. We did not evolve from the Neanderthal, he was a different branch of Evolution that was better suited to the cold climatic conditions of the ice age. We came from a branch that evolved further south.

: I'll try to explain this once more going foward in time, rather then backward. Evolution occurs in the chromosomes. The trail, though I don't know the precise sequence goes like this, plant, aquatic, reptilian, animal, mammalian.

: A species of plant evolves, then mutation occurs, one set of chromosomes goes east, one set goes west. Then mutation occurs in each of these sets, so you now have four different plants. They all have the original chromosomes that provide for photosynthesis, but the chromosomes that make one a sea grass, one a plain's grass, one a scrub brush, and one a fern are all different. These mutations continue until you have a myriad variety of plant life, but they all have the original chromosomes of their linked genetic heritage.

: Now a mutation occurs that creates a new class of life, aquatic. It is no longer a plant, but it has the chain of chromosomes from the plant evolutionary trail that lead to its aquatic form. Wherever the plant life's evolutionary trail branched, the branch that lead to the aquatic form's chromosomes are present in the aquatic form. Now the aquatic form begins to mutate, one set of chromosomes geos east, one goes west, until you have a myriad variety of sea life. In every new species of the aquatic form, are the plant chromosomes which lead to the aquatic form, plus whatever chromosomes of the aquatic form that lead to its present form.

: Then a mutation occurs that allows the aquatic form to crawl up on the land. It becomes a reptile. It has all the plant chromosomes that lead to the aquatic form, plus all the aquatic chromosomes that lead to the reptilian form, and it is now a reptile. Mutation occurs until the land is filled with a myrid variety of reptile.

: A mutation occurs which leads to the animal. It has all the plant chromosomes that lead to the aquatic form, all the aquatic chromosomes that lead to the reptilian form, and all the reptilian chromosomes that lead to the animal form. It does not have all the plant chromosomes that did not lead to the aquatic form, it does not have all the aquatic chromosomes that did not lead to the reptilian form, and it does not have all the reptilian chromosomes that did not lead to the animal form. Mutation occurs until the land is filled with a myrid variety of animal form.

: Mutation occurs that leads to the mammalian form. It has all the chromosomes of its genetic heritage. The mammalian form mutates until the land is filled with a myriad variety of mammal. We are mammals. WithiN our DNA are all the plant chromosomes that lead to the aquatic form, all the aquatic chromosomes that lead to the reptilian form, all the reptilian chromosomes that lead to the animal form, all the animal chromosomes that lead to the mammalian form, and all the mammalian chromosomes that lead to our present form. This IS our genetic heritage. If you turn this around, and look at it backwards, comparing our chromosomes with all the other life that we share this world with, you find that the ones with the Same chromosomes shared the Same genetic heritage. All the mammals have all the Same plant chromosomes, the Same aquatic chromosomes, the Same Reptilian chromosomes, and the Same animal chromosomes, unless two different branchs in the Evolutionary Trail independantly lead to the next form. Mammals do not share the Same chromosomes with all the plant life that did not lead to the aquatic form, all the aquatic life that did not lead to reptilian life, all the reptilian life that did not lead to animal life, and all the animal life that did not lead to the mammalian form. By comparing our chromosomes with the chromosomes of other mammalian life, if we find any chromosomes that are the Same, that did not come from the plant, aquatic, reptilian, or animal form, we know that mammal shared the Same mammalian heritage that we did. If we do not share any of the Same chromosomes other then the plant, aquatic, reptilian, and animal chromosomes that are a shared heritage of All mammilian life, then we did not share in our mammalian heritage.

: That IS Evolution, my friend, and it is recorded, from the beginning to the present, in the structure of Our DNA. N'est Pas?

bzrd here: So you are saying somewhere in our genome is the information for producing chlorophyll? The problem with your theory is that there is not a known point mutation that results in an increase in information. Most, if not all, mutations result in a fatal phenotypic expression, or at best, a neutral expression in the phenotype. Thus, over time, one expects to see a down-hill effect on the genome, in terms of information content. This is consistent with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics with regard to information systems. An analogy would be if you photo-copied the works of Shakespeare millions of times; the probability that "nonsense" would creep into the document far out-weighs the probability of improvements in the work. In real-life, it is a well-known fact that artificial selection takes information OUT of a genome to produce an individual that is bred for a particular purpose [ex. dairy cattle]. Not surprisingly, these animals are less fit to survive under natural conditions when they have to compete vs. their more genetically fit counter-parts. Also, I read where there is evidence that "modern man" and Neanderthal co-mingled; this would seem to present a problem for theory that they were kicked-out of our "familily tree".

• Re: Evolution - Greg_Armel/">Greg Armel - November 10, 1999 - 21:00 UTC
• The evolutionists retort - tenacious - November 10, 1999 - 21:44 UTC
  • Re: The evolutionists retort - bzrd - November 11, 1999 - 18:38 UTC
• unless of course he doesn't exist... or chooses not to get involved in human affairs - tenacious - November 10, 1999 - 21:49 UTC
  • Re: unless of course he doesn't exist... or chooses not to get involved in human affairs - bubba - November 12, 1999 - 03:46 UTC