Hi TB:
I'm curious - you have consistently asserted that the original genes arose
ex nihilo, and that all subsequent novel genes were simply "re-use" of existing structural components. What I'd like to hear is your reason for rejecting the exon theory, for instance, or the other mainstream explanations for the origin of genes. I'd like to see your arguments against, for instance, Blake
et al 1987 hypothesis contained in "Proteins, exons and molecular evolution", (Biosystems 20:181-206), or Gilbert's 1997
Origin of Genes, where he tested Blake's idea. You must be familiar with the work, since you have apparently rejected it. I'd like to see your reasoning. Thanks.
quote:
Creation occurred arond 6000 years ago. Evidence? Helium retention in biotites suggests the geo-col is only 4000 to 14,000 years old. Only the flood could do this of course. Genomes could be only this old too if God created them as kinds that have since diversified.
I'm a tad surprised you bring this up again. The helium retention "evidence" you're banking on was quite significantly refuted in
this thread. Do you have any new evidence that Humphrey's was actually accurate? Inquiring minds, and all that...