Re: Wells and Molecular Phylogenies

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. (dfsiemensjr@juno.com)
Date: Sat Oct 25 2003 - 19:40:37 EDT

  • Next message: RFaussette@aol.com: "The centrality of Jewish endogamy"

    On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 16:05:14 -0700 allenroy <allenroy@peoplepc.com>
    writes:
    > The following is the lead article in the latest "Creation Matters," a
    > popular
    > level Bi-monthly put out by CRS.
    >
    > Dr. Kevin Anderson is the new director of the Van Andel Creation
    > Research Center
    > in Chino Valley, AZ. owned and operated by CRS.
    >
    > Allen Roy
    >
    > Creation, Evolution and the Molecular Revolution
    > by Kevin L. Anderson, Ph.D.*
    >
    > <snip>
    > Bacterial genes in humans
    >
    > For example, while evolutionists gleefully point to the presence of
    > bacterial
    > genes in the human genome as clear evidence of our shared
    > evolutionary descent
    > with bacteria, this actually presents evolutionists with a serious
    > dilemma. No
    > one claims humans descended from bacteria. Rather, bacteria and
    > humans are
    > presumed to have shared an early, biologically “simple” ancestor.
    > Did humans and
    > some bacteria retain genes from these earliest cells, while plants,
    > yeast, and
    > even other bacteria lost them? Or, did several bacteria somehow
    > introduce genes
    > into the early human evolutionary lineage that were retained by
    > humans yet lost
    > by other mammals?
    >
    > Evolutionists do not yet have a plausible explanation. In fact, as
    > genomic
    > sequencing continues, I predict that many different bacterial genes
    > will be
    > found in a variety of species. Are all these genes also a result of
    > common
    > evolutionary ancestry from the earliest life form? Evolutionists
    > will probably
    > soon find that the number of bacterial genes in various animal
    > species is
    > greater than the plausible genome size of any proposed ancestral
    > cell. Hence,
    > this ancient ancestor could not have been the source of all these
    > “shared”
    > bacterial genes. The evolutionary source of these bacterial genes is
    > ambiguous
    > at best, and provides no clear evidence for common evolutionary
    > ancestry.
    >
    This braying jackass refuses to recognize that bacterial and viral genes
    have been incorporated in most genomes by transfer. It has nothing to do
    with descent. I find it hard to believe that anyone with even the most
    rudimentary familiarity with the literature would make a statement like
    Anderson's. I conclude that such falsehood must be deliberate.
    Dave

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Oct 25 2003 - 19:45:05 EDT