Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

What's driving evolution?

Expand Messages
  • Chris Ashcraft
    Outside of a flawed interpretation of the fossil record, perhaps the biggest problem with the Evolutionary teachings is the source of genetic variability .
    Message 1 of 11 , Dec 17, 2001
      Outside of a flawed interpretation of the fossil
      record, perhaps the biggest problem with the
      Evolutionary teachings is the "source of genetic
      variability". The evolutionists commonly teach that
      the primary source of genetic variability is random
      mutation such as replication errors or those induced
      by external mutagens. Note, however, in the paragraphs
      quoted that Mayr himself notes that the real source
      lies within the machinery of the cell as demonstrated
      almost 150 years ago.

      Any genetic change within the genome can constitute a
      "mutation" by definition, and crossing over reactions
      during meiosis alter the genome, but are not taught as
      the mechanism inducing the genetic variability that is
      driving evolution. However, we have known ever since
      Mendel established the basics of genetics that
      offspring variability was introduced by genetic
      recombination during the production of gametes for
      sexual reproduction.

      The differences between offspring from the same
      parents, or the various breeds isolated by plant and
      animal breeders are not due to mutations. It has also
      been well established through selective breeding that
      offspring variability induced exclusively by genetic
      recombination can lead to tremendous morphological
      diversity. The only difference between natural and
      artificial breeding is the selection, but the source
      of variations found in the offspring remains the same.


      It is through internally performed cellular reactions
      that offspring variations are introduced, and it is
      from these differences that nature selects and through
      which evolution occurs. Organismal evolution is a
      result of a history of genetic recombination and
      natural selection. Randomly induced genomic changes
      may also have an effect on the evolutionary history of
      the organism, but they are insignificant in comparison
      to those created during genetic recombination. The dog
      breeds are not mutants, so why are we taught that the
      finches are?

      Chris Ashcraft

      --- Chris Ashcraft <ashcrac@...> wrote:
      >'What Evolution Is': A Friendly Textbook

      >In the end, Mayr provides as convincing a testament
      to
      Darwin's genius as you are likely to find. Virtually
      all of modern evolutionary theory was contained in
      that single book Darwin published in 1859. There is,
      however, one outstanding exception. What, Darwin
      wondered, was the source of the variability in
      populations? ''This is what puzzled Darwin all of his
      life, but in spite of all his efforts he never found
      the answer,'' Mayr writes.

      >What Darwin needed was the science of genetics,
      which,
      unknown to him or anyone else in the scientific world,
      was then being born about 800 miles from London in
      what is now the Czech Republic. There, Gregor Mendel
      was deducing the principles of inheritance from
      painstaking work in a garden of pea plants. Mendel
      presented his findings in 1865, only six years after
      the publication of ''On the Origin of Species'' and 17
      years before Darwin's death. If Darwin had known of
      Mendel's work, he might have solved that one remaining
      puzzle.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/16/books/review/16RAEBURT.html?searchpv=past7days



      =====
      Chris Ashcraft
      Creation Science Resource
      http://www.geocities.com/ashcrac

      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
      your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com
      or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com
    • larjsy
      Amen. Granted nature weeds out the circumstancially weakest specimens but the Kind s original package of genetic information is at already at its best and
      Message 2 of 11 , Dec 18, 2001
        Amen.
        Granted nature weeds out the circumstancially weakest specimens but
        the "Kind's" original package of genetic information is at already at
        its best and strongest *without* mutantions. To improve on the "Kind"
        or change it into a different "Kind", new genetic information must be
        introduced into that genetic package... very specific, highly
        sophisticated, intelligently designed information, or it won't
        happen. God made the different Kinds at Creation and there's no
        evidence to show it's happened since. -lar


        --- In CreationTalk@y..., Chris Ashcraft <ashcrac@y...> wrote:
        > Outside of a flawed interpretation of the fossil
        > record, perhaps the biggest problem with the
        > Evolutionary teachings is the "source of genetic
        > variability". The evolutionists commonly teach that
        > the primary source of genetic variability is random
        > mutation such as replication errors or those induced
        > by external mutagens. Note, however, in the paragraphs
        > quoted that Mayr himself notes that the real source
        > lies within the machinery of the cell as demonstrated
        > almost 150 years ago.
        >
        > Any genetic change within the genome can constitute a
        > "mutation" by definition, and crossing over reactions
        > during meiosis alter the genome, but are not taught as
        > the mechanism inducing the genetic variability that is
        > driving evolution. However, we have known ever since
        > Mendel established the basics of genetics that
        > offspring variability was introduced by genetic
        > recombination during the production of gametes for
        > sexual reproduction.
        >
        > The differences between offspring from the same
        > parents, or the various breeds isolated by plant and
        > animal breeders are not due to mutations. It has also
        > been well established through selective breeding that
        > offspring variability induced exclusively by genetic
        > recombination can lead to tremendous morphological
        > diversity. The only difference between natural and
        > artificial breeding is the selection, but the source
        > of variations found in the offspring remains the same.
        >
        >
        > It is through internally performed cellular reactions
        > that offspring variations are introduced, and it is
        > from these differences that nature selects and through
        > which evolution occurs. Organismal evolution is a
        > result of a history of genetic recombination and
        > natural selection. Randomly induced genomic changes
        > may also have an effect on the evolutionary history of
        > the organism, but they are insignificant in comparison
        > to those created during genetic recombination. The dog
        > breeds are not mutants, so why are we taught that the
        > finches are?
        >
        > Chris Ashcraft
        >
        > --- Chris Ashcraft <ashcrac@y...> wrote:
        > >'What Evolution Is': A Friendly Textbook
        >
        > >In the end, Mayr provides as convincing a testament
        > to
        > Darwin's genius as you are likely to find. Virtually
        > all of modern evolutionary theory was contained in
        > that single book Darwin published in 1859. There is,
        > however, one outstanding exception. What, Darwin
        > wondered, was the source of the variability in
        > populations? ''This is what puzzled Darwin all of his
        > life, but in spite of all his efforts he never found
        > the answer,'' Mayr writes.
        >
        > >What Darwin needed was the science of genetics,
        > which,
        > unknown to him or anyone else in the scientific world,
        > was then being born about 800 miles from London in
        > what is now the Czech Republic. There, Gregor Mendel
        > was deducing the principles of inheritance from
        > painstaking work in a garden of pea plants. Mendel
        > presented his findings in 1865, only six years after
        > the publication of ''On the Origin of Species'' and 17
        > years before Darwin's death. If Darwin had known of
        > Mendel's work, he might have solved that one remaining
        > puzzle.
        >
        > http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/16/books/review/16RAEBURT.html?
        searchpv=past7days
        >
        >
        >
        > =====
        > Chris Ashcraft
        > Creation Science Resource
        > http://www.geocities.com/ashcrac
        >
        > __________________________________________________
        > Do You Yahoo!?
        > Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
        > your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com
        > or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com
      • Lucy Stoner
        ... I am not very versed in Biology. I still have not decided if there is such a thing as evolution (at least what I was taught in school :-P). But how are you
        Message 3 of 11 , Dec 18, 2001
          --- larjsy <larr@...> wrote:
          > Amen.
          > Granted nature weeds out the circumstancially
          > weakest specimens but
          > the "Kind's" original package of genetic information
          > is at already at
          > its best and strongest *without* mutantions.

          I am not very versed in Biology. I still have not
          decided if there is such a thing as evolution (at
          least what I was taught in school :-P). But how are
          you defining "strong" here? How do you define "best".
          Do you mean physically strong? Or are you talking
          about best suited to the environment? I think these
          are two different things. But I am no "ecologist" so
          perhaps I am missing the point?

          LS

          To
          > improve on the "Kind"
          > or change it into a different "Kind", new genetic
          > information must be
          > introduced into that genetic package... very
          > specific, highly
          > sophisticated, intelligently designed information,
          > or it won't
          > happen. God made the different Kinds at Creation and
          > there's no
          > evidence to show it's happened since. -lar
          >
          >
          > --- In CreationTalk@y..., Chris Ashcraft
          > <ashcrac@y...> wrote:
          > > Outside of a flawed interpretation of the fossil
          > > record, perhaps the biggest problem with the
          > > Evolutionary teachings is the "source of genetic
          > > variability". The evolutionists commonly teach
          > that
          > > the primary source of genetic variability is
          > random
          > > mutation such as replication errors or those
          > induced
          > > by external mutagens. Note, however, in the
          > paragraphs
          > > quoted that Mayr himself notes that the real
          > source
          > > lies within the machinery of the cell as
          > demonstrated
          > > almost 150 years ago.
          > >
          > > Any genetic change within the genome can
          > constitute a
          > > "mutation" by definition, and crossing over
          > reactions
          > > during meiosis alter the genome, but are not
          > taught as
          > > the mechanism inducing the genetic variability
          > that is
          > > driving evolution. However, we have known ever
          > since
          > > Mendel established the basics of genetics that
          > > offspring variability was introduced by genetic
          > > recombination during the production of gametes for
          > > sexual reproduction.
          > >
          > > The differences between offspring from the same
          > > parents, or the various breeds isolated by plant
          > and
          > > animal breeders are not due to mutations. It has
          > also
          > > been well established through selective breeding
          > that
          > > offspring variability induced exclusively by
          > genetic
          > > recombination can lead to tremendous morphological
          > > diversity. The only difference between natural and
          > > artificial breeding is the selection, but the
          > source
          > > of variations found in the offspring remains the
          > same.
          > >
          > >
          > > It is through internally performed cellular
          > reactions
          > > that offspring variations are introduced, and it
          > is
          > > from these differences that nature selects and
          > through
          > > which evolution occurs. Organismal evolution is a
          > > result of a history of genetic recombination and
          > > natural selection. Randomly induced genomic
          > changes
          > > may also have an effect on the evolutionary
          > history of
          > > the organism, but they are insignificant in
          > comparison
          > > to those created during genetic recombination. The
          > dog
          > > breeds are not mutants, so why are we taught that
          > the
          > > finches are?
          > >
          > > Chris Ashcraft
          > >
          > > --- Chris Ashcraft <ashcrac@y...> wrote:
          > > >'What Evolution Is': A Friendly Textbook
          > >
          > > >In the end, Mayr provides as convincing a
          > testament
          > > to
          > > Darwin's genius as you are likely to find.
          > Virtually
          > > all of modern evolutionary theory was contained in
          > > that single book Darwin published in 1859. There
          > is,
          > > however, one outstanding exception. What, Darwin
          > > wondered, was the source of the variability in
          > > populations? ''This is what puzzled Darwin all of
          > his
          > > life, but in spite of all his efforts he never
          > found
          > > the answer,'' Mayr writes.
          > >
          > > >What Darwin needed was the science of genetics,
          > > which,
          > > unknown to him or anyone else in the scientific
          > world,
          > > was then being born about 800 miles from London in
          > > what is now the Czech Republic. There, Gregor
          > Mendel
          > > was deducing the principles of inheritance from
          > > painstaking work in a garden of pea plants. Mendel
          > > presented his findings in 1865, only six years
          > after
          > > the publication of ''On the Origin of Species''
          > and 17
          > > years before Darwin's death. If Darwin had known
          > of
          > > Mendel's work, he might have solved that one
          > remaining
          > > puzzle.
          > >
          > >
          >
          http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/16/books/review/16RAEBURT.html?
          > searchpv=past7days
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > =====
          > > Chris Ashcraft
          > > Creation Science Resource
          > > http://www.geocities.com/ashcrac
          > >
          > > __________________________________________________
          > > Do You Yahoo!?
          > > Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for
          > all of
          > > your unique holiday gifts! Buy at
          > http://shopping.yahoo.com
          > > or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com
          >
          >


          __________________________________________________
          Do You Yahoo!?
          Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
          your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com
          or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com
        • Lucy Stoner
          ... Dumb newbie question. What is a crossing over reaction ? Is there some text I can read that would explain this? LS However, we have known ever since ...
          Message 4 of 11 , Dec 18, 2001
            --- Chris Ashcraft <ashcrac@...> wrote:
            > Outside of a flawed interpretation of the fossil
            > record, perhaps the biggest problem with the
            > Evolutionary teachings is the "source of genetic
            > variability". The evolutionists commonly teach that
            > the primary source of genetic variability is random
            > mutation such as replication errors or those induced
            > by external mutagens. Note, however, in the
            > paragraphs
            > quoted that Mayr himself notes that the real source
            > lies within the machinery of the cell as
            > demonstrated
            > almost 150 years ago.
            >
            > Any genetic change within the genome can constitute
            > a
            > "mutation" by definition, and crossing over
            > reactions
            > during meiosis alter the genome, but are not taught
            > as
            > the mechanism inducing the genetic variability that
            > is
            > driving evolution.

            Dumb newbie question. What is a "crossing over
            reaction"? Is there some text I can read that would
            explain this?

            LS


            However, we have known ever since
            > Mendel established the basics of genetics that
            > offspring variability was introduced by genetic
            > recombination during the production of gametes for
            > sexual reproduction.
            >
            > The differences between offspring from the same
            > parents, or the various breeds isolated by plant and
            > animal breeders are not due to mutations. It has
            > also
            > been well established through selective breeding
            > that
            > offspring variability induced exclusively by genetic
            > recombination can lead to tremendous morphological
            > diversity. The only difference between natural and
            > artificial breeding is the selection, but the source
            > of variations found in the offspring remains the
            > same.
            >
            >
            > It is through internally performed cellular
            > reactions
            > that offspring variations are introduced, and it is
            > from these differences that nature selects and
            > through
            > which evolution occurs. Organismal evolution is a
            > result of a history of genetic recombination and
            > natural selection. Randomly induced genomic changes
            > may also have an effect on the evolutionary history
            > of
            > the organism, but they are insignificant in
            > comparison
            > to those created during genetic recombination. The
            > dog
            > breeds are not mutants, so why are we taught that
            > the
            > finches are?
            >
            > Chris Ashcraft
            >
            > --- Chris Ashcraft <ashcrac@...> wrote:
            > >'What Evolution Is': A Friendly Textbook
            >
            > >In the end, Mayr provides as convincing a testament
            > to
            > Darwin's genius as you are likely to find. Virtually
            > all of modern evolutionary theory was contained in
            > that single book Darwin published in 1859. There is,
            > however, one outstanding exception. What, Darwin
            > wondered, was the source of the variability in
            > populations? ''This is what puzzled Darwin all of
            > his
            > life, but in spite of all his efforts he never found
            > the answer,'' Mayr writes.
            >
            > >What Darwin needed was the science of genetics,
            > which,
            > unknown to him or anyone else in the scientific
            > world,
            > was then being born about 800 miles from London in
            > what is now the Czech Republic. There, Gregor Mendel
            > was deducing the principles of inheritance from
            > painstaking work in a garden of pea plants. Mendel
            > presented his findings in 1865, only six years after
            > the publication of ''On the Origin of Species'' and
            > 17
            > years before Darwin's death. If Darwin had known of
            > Mendel's work, he might have solved that one
            > remaining
            > puzzle.
            >
            >
            http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/16/books/review/16RAEBURT.html?searchpv=past7days
            >
            >
            >
            > =====
            > Chris Ashcraft
            > Creation Science Resource
            > http://www.geocities.com/ashcrac
            >
            > __________________________________________________
            > Do You Yahoo!?
            > Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for
            > all of
            > your unique holiday gifts! Buy at
            > http://shopping.yahoo.com
            > or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com
            >


            __________________________________________________
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
            your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com
            or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com
          • larjsy
            I guess by strongest I mean over all best. By best I mean like a computer clean install . When a computer misbehaves and all remedies seem to fail, every
            Message 5 of 11 , Dec 19, 2001
              I guess by "strongest" I mean over all best. By "best" I mean like
              a "computer clean install". When a computer misbehaves and all
              remedies seem to fail, every thing gets wiped out and everything is
              freshly installed as it came from the factory. When God created
              everything he did a perfect job. When he created a "kind", everything
              about it worked perfectly and the genetic information that was given
              had variability that would allow variation within that kind, and all
              the variations would work. When mutations happen, they destroy part
              of the good genetic information that God created. Sometimes that
              creates a problem and sometimes not, but it overall it is not a good
              thing. So the original genetic program is the best. It will not cause
              problems due to the program as God is the perfect programmer.
              cheers, lar

              --- In CreationTalk@y..., Lucy Stoner <big_brownzzz@y...> wrote:
              >
              > --- larjsy <larr@m...> wrote:
              > > Amen.
              > > Granted nature weeds out the circumstancially
              > > weakest specimens but
              > > the "Kind's" original package of genetic information
              > > is at already at
              > > its best and strongest *without* mutantions.
              >
              > I am not very versed in Biology. I still have not
              > decided if there is such a thing as evolution (at
              > least what I was taught in school :-P). But how are
              > you defining "strong" here? How do you define "best".
              > Do you mean physically strong? Or are you talking
              > about best suited to the environment? I think these
              > are two different things. But I am no "ecologist" so
              > perhaps I am missing the point?
              >
              > LS
              >
              > To
              > > improve on the "Kind"
              > > or change it into a different "Kind", new genetic
              > > information must be
              > > introduced into that genetic package... very
              > > specific, highly
              > > sophisticated, intelligently designed information,
              > > or it won't
              > > happen. God made the different Kinds at Creation and
              > > there's no
              > > evidence to show it's happened since. -lar
              > >
              > >
              > > --- In CreationTalk@y..., Chris Ashcraft
              > > <ashcrac@y...> wrote:
              > > > Outside of a flawed interpretation of the fossil
              > > > record, perhaps the biggest problem with the
              > > > Evolutionary teachings is the "source of genetic
              > > > variability". The evolutionists commonly teach
              > > that
              > > > the primary source of genetic variability is
              > > random
              > > > mutation such as replication errors or those
              > > induced
              > > > by external mutagens. Note, however, in the
              > > paragraphs
              > > > quoted that Mayr himself notes that the real
              > > source
              > > > lies within the machinery of the cell as
              > > demonstrated
              > > > almost 150 years ago.
              > > >
              > > > Any genetic change within the genome can
              > > constitute a
              > > > "mutation" by definition, and crossing over
              > > reactions
              > > > during meiosis alter the genome, but are not
              > > taught as
              > > > the mechanism inducing the genetic variability
              > > that is
              > > > driving evolution. However, we have known ever
              > > since
              > > > Mendel established the basics of genetics that
              > > > offspring variability was introduced by genetic
              > > > recombination during the production of gametes for
              > > > sexual reproduction.
              > > >
              > > > The differences between offspring from the same
              > > > parents, or the various breeds isolated by plant
              > > and
              > > > animal breeders are not due to mutations. It has
              > > also
              > > > been well established through selective breeding
              > > that
              > > > offspring variability induced exclusively by
              > > genetic
              > > > recombination can lead to tremendous morphological
              > > > diversity. The only difference between natural and
              > > > artificial breeding is the selection, but the
              > > source
              > > > of variations found in the offspring remains the
              > > same.
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > It is through internally performed cellular
              > > reactions
              > > > that offspring variations are introduced, and it
              > > is
              > > > from these differences that nature selects and
              > > through
              > > > which evolution occurs. Organismal evolution is a
              > > > result of a history of genetic recombination and
              > > > natural selection. Randomly induced genomic
              > > changes
              > > > may also have an effect on the evolutionary
              > > history of
              > > > the organism, but they are insignificant in
              > > comparison
              > > > to those created during genetic recombination. The
              > > dog
              > > > breeds are not mutants, so why are we taught that
              > > the
              > > > finches are?
              > > >
              > > > Chris Ashcraft
              > > >
              > > > --- Chris Ashcraft <ashcrac@y...> wrote:
              > > > >'What Evolution Is': A Friendly Textbook
              > > >
              > > > >In the end, Mayr provides as convincing a
              > > testament
              > > > to
              > > > Darwin's genius as you are likely to find.
              > > Virtually
              > > > all of modern evolutionary theory was contained in
              > > > that single book Darwin published in 1859. There
              > > is,
              > > > however, one outstanding exception. What, Darwin
              > > > wondered, was the source of the variability in
              > > > populations? ''This is what puzzled Darwin all of
              > > his
              > > > life, but in spite of all his efforts he never
              > > found
              > > > the answer,'' Mayr writes.
              > > >
              > > > >What Darwin needed was the science of genetics,
              > > > which,
              > > > unknown to him or anyone else in the scientific
              > > world,
              > > > was then being born about 800 miles from London in
              > > > what is now the Czech Republic. There, Gregor
              > > Mendel
              > > > was deducing the principles of inheritance from
              > > > painstaking work in a garden of pea plants. Mendel
              > > > presented his findings in 1865, only six years
              > > after
              > > > the publication of ''On the Origin of Species''
              > > and 17
              > > > years before Darwin's death. If Darwin had known
              > > of
              > > > Mendel's work, he might have solved that one
              > > remaining
              > > > puzzle.
              > > >
              > > >
              > >
              > http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/16/books/review/16RAEBURT.html?
              > > searchpv=past7days
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > =====
              > > > Chris Ashcraft
              > > > Creation Science Resource
              > > > http://www.geocities.com/ashcrac
              > > >
              > > > __________________________________________________
              > > > Do You Yahoo!?
              > > > Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for
              > > all of
              > > > your unique holiday gifts! Buy at
              > > http://shopping.yahoo.com
              > > > or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com
              > >
              > >
              >
              >
              > __________________________________________________
              > Do You Yahoo!?
              > Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
              > your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com
              > or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com
            • Shery Jespersen
              ... As ranchers, we breed high volume livestock. We get to see numbers . If mutation is a good thing, Ive yet to see it. Varying off course is not a good
              Message 6 of 11 , Dec 19, 2001
                larjsy wrote:
                > When he created a "kind", everything
                > about it worked perfectly and the genetic information that was given
                > had variability that would allow variation within that kind, and all
                > the variations would work. When mutations happen, they destroy part
                > of the good genetic information that God created. Sometimes that
                > creates a problem and sometimes not, but it overall it is not a good
                > thing.

                As ranchers, we breed high volume livestock. We get to see 'numbers'. If
                'mutation' is a good thing, Ive yet to see it. Varying off course is
                not a good thing. In animals, they almost invariably perish due to
                Nature not providing a forgiving place for something that is different.
                Those animals who are designed to thrive still have the struggle to
                survive in front of them. The weak and the 'not normal' can ill afford a
                disadvantage.

                Even something so simple as a creamy white horse (a cremello or perlino
                with blue eyes - the result of parentage offering a double dose of a
                dilution gene) who is within the acceptable variation theme of things is
                still not good thing in natural living conditions. This same trait is
                undesirable also in Australian Shepherd stockdogs(too much white with
                both blue eyes). In the case of the horse, his pink skin sunburns easy
                and his eyesight is not as good. Bright sun is his enemy. In all the
                photos of wild horses, Ive not seen this color and I beleive there is a
                logical reason for it. It doesnt survive. In the case of the dog, the
                same rules apply but here there is another curse than can accompany the
                white and blue eyed dog: deafness and poor sight. People have bred
                more of the creamy white horses because in the horse market, colorful
                horses are popular - and the cremello and perlino are not 50% color
                producers...they are 100% color producers. No matter what they are bred
                to, they will produce gold - buckskin or palomino. That is their value
                in the market. Out in nature, if that is where they had to make a go of
                it, I'm afraid that the tale of the gorgeous white stallion would be
                much more short-lived. And in truth, the white stallion in stories was
                likely an aged stallion of gray genetics who appears white when mature
                (like the Lippizans).

                In the wild, naturally occuring albinos dont fare so well...squirrels
                and so on. By the way, true albinos do not exist in horses.
                Shery Jespersen
                LaReata Livestock http://lareata.8m.com/
              • Shery Jespersen
                ... Sometimes people acquire too many big words. It takes up so much memory in the human brain to out-word an opponent, that they common sense equation gets
                Message 7 of 11 , Dec 19, 2001
                  Lucy Stoner wrote:
                  >
                  > --- Chris Ashcraft <ashcrac@...> wrote:
                  > > Outside of a flawed interpretation of the fossil
                  > > record, perhaps the biggest problem with the
                  > > Evolutionary teachings is the "source of genetic
                  > > variability". The evolutionists commonly teach that
                  > > the primary source of genetic variability is random
                  > > mutation such as replication errors or those induced
                  > > by external mutagens.

                  Sometimes people acquire too many big words. It takes up so much memory
                  in the human brain to out-word an opponent, that they common sense
                  equation gets lost in the shuffle. The intellectual therefore becomes an
                  educated dope. "Thinking themselves wise, they became fools." So, you
                  see, its not my opinion on the matter - ha.

                  All these folks need to do is get out in the field and observe Nature in
                  practical application mode and they would invaribaly get to see just how
                  little chance 'something different' has in the survival arena. But even
                  at that, when you want to believe something, you find support for it
                  even if you have to make it up. You acquire an intellectual base from
                  which to base your project, make it appear for all intents and purposes
                  that you're smarter than the average bear (to borrow a term from Yogi &
                  BuBu) and Vwa-LA...you create all the trappings for 'smarter wins'.
                  Thing is though, intellectual accomplishment only gets you halfway
                  'there'. If you miss the truth along the way, all you Really know is
                  what you think you know. So, there you are...a lovely collection of
                  theory and letters behind names and you can still be an educated dope.
                  I think it is also likened to the common saying - 'not seeing the forest
                  for the trees'. Same dif. I was one that followed evolutionary teaching
                  primarily because it was what was taught. As I got older, the foundation
                  upon which the bible rest was always a real problem zone for me. I
                  asked God to take me to the truth - and that it didnt matter where it
                  was - as long as I got the straight skinny. THAT is the key...if you
                  are willing to follow His lead and leave all your preferences behind. He
                  promises the sincere seeker that He will deliver. When the Truth matters
                  more to you than what you want to believe, thats when things come
                  together. Its the only way they will.
                  Shery Jespersen
                • Chris Ashcraft
                  The characteristics common to any particular organism are altered primarily through reactions called crossovers. The gametes (sperm,egg,pollen) produced by
                  Message 8 of 11 , Dec 19, 2001
                    The characteristics common to any particular organism are altered
                    primarily through reactions called crossovers. The gametes
                    (sperm,egg,pollen) produced by organisms are genetically unique as a
                    result of genetic recombination performed by the cells prior to
                    fertilization. "Genetic recombination" is accomplished during the
                    complex division processes called meiosis.

                    During meiosis, the genetic pool of the cell winds itself into
                    incomprehensibly dense structures called chromosomes which remain as
                    equivalent units received from your two parents. Prior to dividing and
                    passing this material to future children these homologous chromosomes
                    react with one another during which genetic information is exchanged
                    (crossing over). Following this, the homologues separate independent of
                    one another so that the daughter cells are always unique.

                    The existence of these reactions is common knowledge, and it is well
                    understood that all offspring are genetically unique as a result. It is
                    also well recognized that it is from a pool of variable offspring that
                    nature selects, and it is through these selections that evolution
                    occurs. Likewise we know all breeders are selecting from genetic
                    recombinants; not mutants.

                    When discussing evolution however, it would seem we must forget about
                    genetic recombination, and breeding histories. They say the cell has not
                    been designed with the mechanics to create genetic variability through
                    controlled reactions; so copying errors and external mutagens are
                    apparently responsible for offspring variability after all.

                    They are blinded by their atheistic philosophy. The molecular machinery
                    drives evolution, and the designer watches over us....

                    Chris W. Ashcraft

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: Lucy Stoner [mailto:big_brownzzz@...]
                    Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] What's driving evolution?

                    >Dumb newbie question. What is a "crossing over
                    reaction"? Is there some text I can read that would
                    explain this?
                  • KarlHyzer@aol.com
                    In a message dated 12/19/2001 5:07:12 AM Pacific Standard Time, larr@mail.com ... Excellent analogy. I had never thought of it in those terms, and I work in
                    Message 9 of 11 , Dec 19, 2001
                      In a message dated 12/19/2001 5:07:12 AM Pacific Standard Time, larr@... writes:


                      I guess by "strongest" I mean over all best. By "best" I mean like
                      a "computer clean install". When a computer misbehaves and all
                      remedies seem to fail, every thing gets wiped out and everything is
                      freshly installed as it came from the factory. When God created
                      everything he did a perfect job. When he created a "kind", everything
                      about it worked perfectly and the genetic information that was given
                      had variability that would allow variation within that kind, and all
                      the variations would work. When mutations happen, they destroy part
                      of the good genetic information that God created. Sometimes that
                      creates a problem and sometimes not, but it overall it is not a good
                      thing. So the original genetic program is the best. It will not cause
                      problems due to the program as God is the perfect programmer. 
                      cheers, lar



                      Excellent analogy.  I had never thought of it in those terms, and I work in computers.

                      And sin is the root of the mutations, the virus in the program.  And one day God will do a clean reinstall, putting everything back into its perfect order.

                      Blessings

                      Karl
                    • Lucy Stoner
                      Thanks for the explination. LS ... __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
                      Message 10 of 11 , Dec 20, 2001
                        Thanks for the explination.

                        LS
                        --- Chris Ashcraft <ashcraftC@...> wrote:
                        > The characteristics common to any particular
                        > organism are altered
                        > primarily through reactions called crossovers. The
                        > gametes
                        > (sperm,egg,pollen) produced by organisms are
                        > genetically unique as a
                        > result of genetic recombination performed by the
                        > cells prior to
                        > fertilization. "Genetic recombination" is
                        > accomplished during the
                        > complex division processes called meiosis.
                        >
                        > During meiosis, the genetic pool of the cell winds
                        > itself into
                        > incomprehensibly dense structures called chromosomes
                        > which remain as
                        > equivalent units received from your two parents.
                        > Prior to dividing and
                        > passing this material to future children these
                        > homologous chromosomes
                        > react with one another during which genetic
                        > information is exchanged
                        > (crossing over). Following this, the homologues
                        > separate independent of
                        > one another so that the daughter cells are always
                        > unique.
                        >
                        > The existence of these reactions is common
                        > knowledge, and it is well
                        > understood that all offspring are genetically unique
                        > as a result. It is
                        > also well recognized that it is from a pool of
                        > variable offspring that
                        > nature selects, and it is through these selections
                        > that evolution
                        > occurs. Likewise we know all breeders are selecting
                        > from genetic
                        > recombinants; not mutants.
                        >
                        > When discussing evolution however, it would seem we
                        > must forget about
                        > genetic recombination, and breeding histories. They
                        > say the cell has not
                        > been designed with the mechanics to create genetic
                        > variability through
                        > controlled reactions; so copying errors and external
                        > mutagens are
                        > apparently responsible for offspring variability
                        > after all.
                        >
                        > They are blinded by their atheistic philosophy. The
                        > molecular machinery
                        > drives evolution, and the designer watches over
                        > us....
                        >
                        > Chris W. Ashcraft
                        >
                        > -----Original Message-----
                        > From: Lucy Stoner [mailto:big_brownzzz@...]
                        > Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] What's driving
                        > evolution?
                        >
                        > >Dumb newbie question. What is a "crossing over
                        > reaction"? Is there some text I can read that would
                        > explain this?
                        >


                        __________________________________________________
                        Do You Yahoo!?
                        Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
                        your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com
                        or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com
                      • Chris Ashcraft
                        Genetic recombination is the mechanism God has provided to introduce offspring variability, or to make children that are all different from one another. This
                        Message 11 of 11 , Dec 21, 2001
                          Genetic recombination is the mechanism God has provided to introduce
                          offspring variability, or to make children that are all different from
                          one another. This does not constitute a degradation of the code, but an
                          alteration executed by the cellular mechanisms designed to perform these
                          reactions. The specific purpose for these rearrangements is to provide
                          evolutionary potential, and/or allows organisms to adapt to a wide
                          variety of ecological circumstances. If anything, a history
                          recombination and selection improves the organism or at least its
                          ability to survive in its existing environment.

                          Although any change of genomic DNA can constitute a mutation in a war of
                          words, when the evolutionists speak of mutations they are referring to
                          those introduced by copying errors and as a result of exposures to
                          external mutagens. Mutations are variability that slip in erroneously,
                          whereas genetic recombinations are non-random rearrangements performed
                          by the cell. Either can play a part in the history of the organism. The
                          problem with the evolutionary teaching is their claim that random
                          mutations are the primary source of variability driving evolution.

                          The differences amoung children from the same parents or breeds from the
                          same kind are the result of meiotic recombination. Random mutations have
                          nothing to do with these changes, nor the differences amoung the
                          finches, nor were mutations responsible for the camouflaging butterflies
                          which are so commonly used as proof of evolution.

                          Everything we know from genetics points to meiotic recombination as the
                          source of the variations commonly touted by evolutionists as proof of
                          evolution. The purpose of genetic recombination is to introduce
                          variability within the pool of offspring, and these reactions are
                          theoretically limitless at our present level of understanding. It is
                          through these differences that evolution operates. Nature selects from
                          the differences that exist within the population, and through a history
                          of genetic recombination and selection the organism becomes adapted
                          genetically and physically to the region in which they live..

                          Chris Ashcraft

                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: grappler [mailto:thegrappler@...]
                          Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 11:50 AM

                          >Here's a question: does a nucleotide pair switching places within a
                          chromosome pair constitue a "degrading" of genetic information in your
                          mind? Or does this allow for a Vast number of genetic makeups with no
                          loss in "quality"? Were Adam and Eve's genes the one perfect
                          arrangement, or would these crossovers lead to arrangements equally
                          acceptable.

                          >Followup: based on answer to the above, what is the difference between
                          a
                          crossover and a random mutation? Are they fundamentally different kinds
                          of
                          genetic alterations? Or is a crossover just a specific kind of
                          mutation?
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.