tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post4765210174293256260..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Pyruvate dehydrogenase astonishes Ann GaugerLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger92125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-78886497952746493092017-02-07T04:04:37.857-05:002017-02-07T04:04:37.857-05:00I take a chance and offer this quote from Reinvent...I take a chance and offer this quote from <i>Reinventing The Sacred</i> where the author, Stuart A. Kauffman argues<br /><br /><i>My own theory of collectively autocatalytic sets suggests that their formation is highly probable. The theory can now be teseted. If correct, the routes to molecular reproduction may be much easier than we have imagined and constitute a form of fully emergent, spontaneous self-organization of a chemical-reaction system. Such emergence would not be reducible to physices. And life, in the sense of molecular reproduction, would be expected, not incredibly improbable. If so, our view of life changes radically. Not only does life not need special intervention by a Creator God, it is a natural, emergent expression of the routine creativity of the universe.</i>Rolf Aalberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12878337054438652463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-18671557408983899172017-02-03T07:19:26.449-05:002017-02-03T07:19:26.449-05:00Your explanation does not take into consideration...Your explanation does not take into consideration that : <br /><br />at three points, all outside the metabolic pools, do we find reactions in gluconeogenesis that use different enzymes: <br /><br />https://www.rpi.edu/dept/bcbp/molbiochem/MBWeb/mb1/part2/gluconeo.htm<br />(1) the conversion of pyruvate to phosphoenolpyruvate (PEP), <br />(2) the conversion of fructose-1,6-bisphosphate to fructose-6-phosphate, and <br />(3) the conversion of hexose phosphate to storage polysaccharide or hexose phosphate to glucose. <br /><br /><br />Clearly, if cells are to conduct these reactions in the reverse direction, the three reactions must have a different ATP-to- ADP Stoichiometry and accordingly different enzymes are required. <br /><br />Gluconeogenesis (GNG) is a metabolic pathway that results in the generation of glucose from the breakdown of proteins ,these substrates include glucogenic amino acids (although not ketogenic amino acids); from breakdown of lipids (such as triglycerides), they include glycerol (although not fatty acids); and from other steps in metabolism they include pyruvate and lactate. <br /><br />Questions: <br />If Gluconeogenesis came first, where did the atp and all other essential products to make enzymes come from to make the enzymes in the gluconeogenesis pathway ?<br />Prior Glycolysis took over, what other pathway would supposedly have been in place to produce the same substrates as Glycolysis ? <br />What was in your view the precursos of gluconeogenesis? <br />Why would Gluconeogenesis be a less chicken egg - catch 22 problem ? Its complexity is basically the same as of Glycolysis. <br />If the problem of Glycolysis first was the fact that no Glucose was readily available on early earth, what makes you think, the above mentioned substrates to feed gluconeogenesis were less a problem ? <br />Does Gluconeogenesis not depend on mitochondria, the cytoplasm, and the cell membrane amongst other molecules ?<br />Had pyruvate carboxylase and acetyl-CoA not have to be present for gluconeogenesis to start ?<br />How did the transition from the 3 enzymes used in Gluconeogenesis to Glycolysis occur, and upon what selective pressures ? <br />Why would there have been a transition from a supposed precursor system to Glycolysis ?ElShamah777https://www.blogger.com/profile/12608626398803379702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-1851909959739835862017-02-03T07:17:57.484-05:002017-02-03T07:17:57.484-05:00Larry, you have not responded to my inquiry at Fac...Larry, you have not responded to my inquiry at Facebook, so i ask you here:<br /><br />Laurence Moran wrote:<br />The breakdown of glucose (glycolysis) uses some of the same enzymes used in gluconeogenesis except they catalyze the reverse reaction. (All enzymes catalyze reactions in both directions.) Thus, some of the enzymes required for glyolysis were already present making it easier for the glycolytic pathway to evolve millions of years after the gluconeogenesis pathway arose.<br /><br />You cannot get around the fact which i mentioned already: Whatever first pathway you replace glycolysis with, it has to be a complex multi-step process , requiring a number of enzymes and regulation. And you will ALWAYS be confronted with the initial problem exposed : it takes energy to make energy. If Gluconeogenesis came before or not, does not change anything in that fundamental problem. <br /><br />Following paper makes the same assertion:<br />Evolution of the coordinate regulation of glycolytic enzyme genes by hypoxia<br />The first glycolytic enzymes in the Archean period probably contributed mainly anabolic, gluconeogenic functions (Conway, 1992; Romano and Conway, 1996; Selig et al., 1997), with catabolic functions being acquired subsequently as kinases appeared to use ATP, ADP or pyrophosphate as phosphate shuttles (Romano and Conway, 1996). <br />http://jeb.biologists.org/content/206/17/2911<br /><br />They just assert catabolic functions were being acquired subsequently . How ?! 3 enzymes had to be replaced to generate a reverse function. <br /><br />Many papers mention glycolysis as one of the most conserved and fundamental metabolic pathways. <br /><br />Monroe Strickberger, Evolution, page 13: <br />"Anaerobic glycolysis, the breakdown of glucose in the absence of oxygen, is perhaps the most elemental metabolic pathway, and all living creatures share various sections of this pathway.This universality seems to depend on the fact that all existing organisms derive their free energy from the chemical breakdown of such monosaccharides."<br /><br />Origins of Life on the Earth and in the Cosmos pg. 194<br />"Glycolysis is the most ubiquitous pathway in all energy metabolism, occurring in almost every living cell."<br /><br />The Origin and Evolution of Cells<br />"In the initially anaerobic atmosphere of Earth, the first energy-generating reactions presumably involved the breakdown of organic molecules in the absence of oxygen. These reactions are likely to have been a form of present-day glycolysis—the anaerobic breakdown of glucose to lactic acid, with the net energy gain of two molecules of ATP."<br />https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9841/<br />ElShamah777https://www.blogger.com/profile/12608626398803379702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-49489013958709423032017-01-27T09:52:34.962-05:002017-01-27T09:52:34.962-05:00I would say to some extent atypical, in that he do...I would say to some extent atypical, in that he does actually accede to some arguments sometimes (e.g., about Behe getting his rear end handed to him regarding the supposed irreducible complexity of the blood clotting cascade during cross examination at the Dover trial). Whether such small realizations will eventually lead to the larger one that none of these anti-evolution arguments rests on solid ground, and there really is a world of evidence supporting evolution, is anyone's guess.judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-72940492588258810322017-01-26T17:20:30.963-05:002017-01-26T17:20:30.963-05:00There's also the fact that I explained why Lar...There's also the fact that I explained why Larry's argument was not a strawman, but a direct response to the argument as enunciated by Behe. Larry even quoted Behe's words directly.<br /><br />Bill ignores all that, and claims that all he sees are "straw man and ad hominem arguments." For how many years has he been discussing evolution here, at The Skeptical Zone, and who knows where else? And he seriously tries to claim that no one has ever provided anything but straw men and ad homs? All he does in so doing is confirm his intellectual dishonesty, and that he is either unwilling or incapable of engaging in a discussion in good faith.<br /><br />A typical creationist, IOW.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-29911199023730280472017-01-26T16:50:38.743-05:002017-01-26T16:50:38.743-05:00without straw man
Hi Bill - I explained just abov...<i>without straw man</i><br /><br />Hi Bill - I explained just above why that wasn't a straw man argument. Did you follow? Just saying we were designed isn't good enough. Somewhere back at the end of any chain of designers must be some supernatural (because eternal, for starters) entity to create the first non-supernatural designers; or, alternatively, the designers evolved. If the designers evolved, you haven't overthrown evolution, just changed the time and place it happened. So yes, it really must come down logically to supernatural creation or evolution.<br /><br />Thus anyone who claims evolution didn't occur *must* have an eternal supernatural being as the original cause of life. So people who point that out aren't attacking a straw man, they're pointing out a logical necessity of the anti-evolution argument.judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-34046286940861046192017-01-26T14:07:40.296-05:002017-01-26T14:07:40.296-05:00"We guys" can, and have been, for over a..."We guys" can, and have been, for over a century and a half. We wonder when you guys are going to open your eyes and remove your fingers from your ears.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-9122230495940464352017-01-26T14:00:25.125-05:002017-01-26T14:00:25.125-05:00LS
"Lose which battle? The battle to persuade...LS<br />"Lose which battle? The battle to persuade Bill Cole to accept evolution? That battle is a lost cause until Bill Cole decides to understand the evidence presented to him, and acquires the ability to think rationally."<br /><br />Let me repeat for the last time.<br /><br />I am interested if you guys can make a case without straw man and ad hominem arguments. If not you are going to eventually lose this battle.<br />Bill Colehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06642212549806694659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-37879029118093738412017-01-26T13:53:45.515-05:002017-01-26T13:53:45.515-05:00Lose which battle? The battle to persuade Bill Co...Lose which battle? The battle to persuade Bill Cole to accept evolution? That battle is a lost cause until Bill Cole decides to understand the evidence presented to him, and acquires the ability to think rationally.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-6810847121259647612017-01-26T13:15:23.263-05:002017-01-26T13:15:23.263-05:00LS
"But hey, Bill, if you really believe &quo...LS<br />"But hey, Bill, if you really believe "design" can exist without implying the existence of a "designer", then join the club of which Richard Dawkins is a member. He call his non-designer "The Blind Watchmaker"."<br /><br />Certainly a candidate. <br /><br />I am interested if you guys can make a case without straw man and ad hominem arguments. If not you are going to eventually lose this battle.Bill Colehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06642212549806694659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-52251021322286950652017-01-26T08:46:37.562-05:002017-01-26T08:46:37.562-05:00But hey, Bill, if you really believe "design&...But hey, Bill, if you really believe "design" can exist without implying the existence of a "designer", then join the club of which Richard Dawkins is a member. He call his non-designer "Tthe Blind Watchmaker". Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-22465940408490083252017-01-26T08:43:47.654-05:002017-01-26T08:43:47.654-05:00@ Bill Cole:
If you were capable of understanding...@ Bill Cole:<br /><br />If you were capable of understanding Larry's argument, you would have noticed that your objection is irrelevant. Larry addresses and refutes Behe's argument for "design", without addressing the identity of the alleged "designer."<br /><br />At the same time, Larry is also calling out the IDiots for their disingenuous claims they believe this "design" could result from anything else other than God. I lie which you see fit to repeat her.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-11485367080772732862017-01-26T07:32:58.473-05:002017-01-26T07:32:58.473-05:00This is a straw man argument. You are doing the sa...<i>This is a straw man argument. You are doing the same thing you accuse the ID guys of. The argument is evidence of design not the designer.</i><br /><br />Actually, it isn't if you follow the argument logically. If we are designed by a non-divine advanced civilization, then all you have done is move the location of the discussion - in other words, who designed *them*? So you simply get into a who-designed-the-designers infinite series, where the very first designers were either created by some supernatural/divine entity, or evolved themselves, and thus evolution is true.<br /><br />So that's the issue, Bill, evolution versus the divine, no matter whether you want to locate it on Earth or elsewhere.judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-13722271227365035862017-01-26T07:26:51.553-05:002017-01-26T07:26:51.553-05:00Gene families would mean as many accidental duplic...<i>Gene families would mean as many accidental duplication events as there are family members, and more accidental further refinements. <b>I don’t believe things like happen accidentally</b>.</i><br /><br />Some cancers are caused by partial gene duplication events, including some pediatric tumors and leukemias. So I guess your God wants babies to die in pain?<br />judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-48451955753075795102017-01-26T07:12:12.114-05:002017-01-26T07:12:12.114-05:00Well, shoot. I was hoping you’d use a USGS report ...<i>Well, shoot. I was hoping you’d use a USGS report or something like that. Why would you go to a creation site for an answer?</i><br /><br />It was a USGS paper, Tx. Sorry to disappoint(?) you. It was cited in an article at a creation site that tried to cite/quote mine parts of it incorrectly as support for the creation science view that big coal seams are utterly inexplicable, therefore all of science is wrong. (Geiger counters don't work, that sort of thing, because that's what would have to be true for creation science to be correct.) The USGS paper just does what a lot of papers do, which is survey the former work in the field and analyze it in view of what is known at the time the paper is written. The author comes to the quite reasonable and utterly non-miraculous conclusion I quoted at the end of the paper, which of course is completely opposite to the proposition for which the creation science website referenced it.<br /><br />The reason I had to look at a creation science site in the first place is because that was the first place I thought of going to check out loony theories about thick coal seams being impossible. After all, I don't recall the CEO of Peabody Powder River Mining all over the news shrieking "Our coal mine is an impossible miracle from God!" Betcha their geologists don't believe that either. So no, for anything that bonkers, I had to check out a creation science site. And of course in the very first paper (the USGS paper) cited in the very first article I looked at on the very first creation science site I went to, I found the very reasonable scientific conclusion I quoted to you.<br /><br />Now that I've cleared up your misimpression, I just know you're going to regale me with *support* for flood geology and creationist nuclear physics like I asked, right, Tx? Tx??<br /><br />(By the way, *after* you provide the support I've been politely requesting, I'm curious about something else: Why does your God demand you remain ignorant of His creation? It seems to me you'd be right there with the scientists who want to know Him *through* His creation. But perhaps that's just me, and the awesomeness and beauty of the universe as revealed by scientific research strikes you as more of a threat to your beliefs than a path to your Creator?)<br />judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-980317359131207762017-01-25T23:16:48.386-05:002017-01-25T23:16:48.386-05:00txpiper,
I will merely note that you attempt no c...txpiper,<br /><br />I will merely note that you attempt no coherent defense of your views.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04478895397136729867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-1648608109801666302017-01-25T21:34:45.633-05:002017-01-25T21:34:45.633-05:00John Harshman,
"1) Not my job."
Nobody...John Harshman,<br /><br />"1) Not my job."<br /><br />Nobody wants that job. <br /><br />"2) I did answer it. Remember the bit about gene duplication, etc.?"<br /><br />Yes, and that did qualify as a 'bit'.txpiperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03645156881353741058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-42142138790352755182017-01-25T21:31:21.680-05:002017-01-25T21:31:21.680-05:00bwilson295,
I overlooked this. My apologies.
“So...bwilson295,<br /><br />I overlooked this. My apologies.<br /><br />“So . . . why that statement with the emphasized *imagine*? As if duplicated and modified genes weren't real and can't be explanations for a lot of the genetic diversity we see?”<br /><br />I wasn’t saying that similar genes are imaginary. What I was emphasizing is the way they are appraised. Gene duplication is an easier thing to imagine than de novo genes. I think GD is a panacea. As I mentioned, I’ve read many articles and papers, and they usually just repeat the same thing. Here is an interesting example:<br /><br /><i>”Gene duplication provides opportunities to explore this forbidden evolutionary space more widely by generating duplicates of a gene that can ‘wander’ more freely, on condition that between them they continue to supply the original function.”</i><br />…<br /><b>”What Is the Evidence for the Importance of Gene Duplication?”</b><br /><br /><i>”The primary evidence that duplication has played a vital role in the evolution of new gene functions is the widespread existence of gene families.”</i><br />http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0020206 <br /><br />That is not evidence of the duplicate-and-modify narrative. That is looking at something and making an assumption. Gene families would mean as many accidental duplication events as there are family members, and more accidental further refinements. I don’t believe things like happen accidentally.<br /><br />-<br /><br />“Terminus Est asked you about the origin of enzymes, not John Harshman.”<br /><br />Yes, and he knew my answer when he asked. I’m a creationist. I believe things were created fully functional and integrated. Terminus Est does not. He believes, along with most of the people here, that things like replication enzymes and ribosome ‘evolved’. I can’t say I blame any of you for not wanting to talk about things like that. With gene duplication, at least you’ve got a starting point.<br />txpiperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03645156881353741058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-50381262701931795512017-01-25T19:21:48.356-05:002017-01-25T19:21:48.356-05:00Txpiper,
You persist in being so obtuse that one ...Txpiper,<br /><br />You persist in being so obtuse that one wonders if you have any clue about what you read or write.<br /><br /><i>How do you think chromosome numbers change? Are they more likely to be gained or lost?</i><br /><br />Usually they change either by polypoidy, fission, or fusion. I can't say that either gain or loss is more common, but note that in fission and fusion no genetic material is actually either gained or lost, just repackaged. As in, for example, the fusion that resulted in humans having one more chromosome than chimps.<br /><br /><i>(Me:)“why does a difference in chromosome number tell you that two species are different kinds?”<br /><br />It doesn’t.</i><br /><br />And yet when asked how you knew that foxes and dogs were different kinds, you pointed exclusively to chromosome number. Do you even remember what you say from one moment to the next?<br /><br /><i>I told you above that I would think that kinds would fall between family and genus. That would mean that species and subspecies are not different kinds. For chromosome counts, horses have 64, donkeys 62, zebras 32-46 (depending on species). All the same genus, all the same family. All obviously the same kind.</i><br /><br />Why "obviously"? How do you tell if two species belong to the same kind?<br /><i>If a systematist cannot pin down a single definition for what a species is, it is because there is some amount of arbitrariness involved.</i><br /><br />Indeed there is, and of course it's because speciation happens, and speciation isn't instantaneous, so there are all degrees of intermediacy. What does this have to do with "kinds"?<br /><br /><i>I’m sure you know what the ICZN is, and why there is such a thing.</i><br /><br />I do. But I don't think you do. It has nothing to do with the subject.<br /><br /><i>Why the reluctance to answer Terminus Est’s question?</i><br /><br />Two reasons:<br /><br />1) Not my job.<br /><br />2) I did answer it. Remember the bit about gene duplication, etc.?John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04478895397136729867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-56158635329433265702017-01-25T18:51:13.988-05:002017-01-25T18:51:13.988-05:00Terminus Est asked you about the origin of enzymes...Terminus Est asked you about the origin of enzymes, not John Harshman. <br /><br />And no, although systematists know something about enzymes, we don't know everything about them. <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-36349191933538113262017-01-25T18:33:52.532-05:002017-01-25T18:33:52.532-05:00Larry
"Here's how Michael Behe describes ...Larry<br />"Here's how Michael Behe describes his view in Darwin's Black Box (p. 39). As you read his description, note that his entire argument is based on the supposition that an irreducibly complex system cannot be the product of naturalistic evolution. It's impossible, according to Behe, so the only alternative is god(s) did it. "<br /><br />This is a straw man argument. You are doing the same thing you accuse the ID guys of. The argument is evidence of design not the designer.Bill Colehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06642212549806694659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-39984791567726158022017-01-25T17:53:32.342-05:002017-01-25T17:53:32.342-05:00judmarc,
Well, shoot. I was hoping you’d use a US...judmarc,<br /><br />Well, shoot. I was hoping you’d use a USGS report or something like that. Why would you go to a creation site for an answer? <br /><br />You didn’t link to the paper you quoted from, so I couldn’t tell what they are trying to explain when it says “The most likely factor…”. <br /><br />The Powder River coal deposits are quite large. Here is a picture of one of the mines:<br /><br />https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/coal-mine-powder-river-basin <br /><br />Your quote says “Drainage from the Wind River Basin to the Powder River Basin throughout most of the early Tertiary greatly increased the volume of water flowing through the basin along the basin-axis trunk streams. Greater amounts of water favored accumulation and preservation of peat”<br /><br />They estimate the ratio of peat to formed coal to be 3-7:1. So a 100 foot thick coal seam would represent what would have been a 300-700 foot thick layer of peat. Just the Black Thunder mine has exposed more than 40 square miles of coal beds. I don’t think ‘water flowing through the basin’ adequately explains the accumulation of that much concentrated plant matter. But I’m sure you do. txpiperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03645156881353741058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-49231416624153718702017-01-25T17:14:41.782-05:002017-01-25T17:14:41.782-05:00John Harshman,
“So if chromosome number can chang...John Harshman,<br /><br />“So if chromosome number can change…”<br /><br />How do you think chromosome numbers change? Are they more likely to be gained or lost?<br />-<br />“why does a difference in chromosome number tell you that two species are different kinds?”<br /><br />It doesn’t. I told you above that I would think that kinds would fall between family and genus. That would mean that species and subspecies are <i>not</i> different kinds. For chromosome counts, horses have 64, donkeys 62, zebras 32-46 (depending on species). All the same genus, all the same family. All obviously the same kind. <br />-<br />“And please don't lecture a systematist on species definitions.”<br /><br />If a systematist cannot pin down a single definition for what a species is, it is because there is some amount of arbitrariness involved. I’m sure you know what the ICZN is, and why there is such a thing. Sometimes, things are reclassified. The organisms are what they are. It is the system that has to be adjusted.<br /><br />But I would still think a systematist would know all about the origin of enzymes, or at least the ideas about where they came from. Why the reluctance to answer Terminus Est’s question?<br />txpiperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03645156881353741058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-70528895515287123172017-01-25T12:29:37.720-05:002017-01-25T12:29:37.720-05:00Why don’t you start that discussion with a convent...<i>Why don’t you start that discussion with a conventional explanation for coal seams 200 feet thick?</i><br /><br />HAHAHAHAHA! Now *that's* entertainment! All the same ridiculous tactics on display: All of science must be wrong because of an interesting issue in one branch of one science (in this case the paleogeology of coal formation), where "Creation science" liberally takes citations and quotes out of context to try to score points amongst the credulous uninformed.<br /><br />Here's your answer, from the very first paper cited in the very first Creation science flood geology article I looked at on the topic:<br /><br />"The most likely factor is regional paleogeography. Drainage from the Wind River Basin to the Powder River Basin throughout most of the early Tertiary greatly increased the volume of water flowing through the basin along the basin-axis trunk streams. Greater amounts of water favored accumulation and preservation of peat and the formation of thicker and more widespread coal deposits than in adjacent basins that were climatically and tectonically similar but lacked a major extrabasinal water source."<br /><br />Whoops, guess all of nuclear physics, geology, paleontology and genetics are *not* wrong based on some thick coal deposits in Wyoming.<br /><br />But I asked *you* for *support* for flood geology and new nuclear physics, and all you've given me is an article that tries to turn an interesting actual geological topic into a major problem that doesn't exist. That isn't *support* for ludicrous flood geology or some weird version of nuclear physics. Don't you know what *support* means? Where's your evidence?judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5375028079034302682017-01-25T07:07:02.319-05:002017-01-25T07:07:02.319-05:00txpiper no doubt imagines that once a gene is dupl...txpiper no doubt imagines that once a gene is duplicated, Baby Jesus personally tends to it to make sure it doesn't mutate enough to create a new function. Otherwise, one "kind" would inevitably split into two "kinds", and his religion forbids that. Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.com