BobTHJ writes:
I'll try to do a little better. However, as I've previously stated I base my conclusions upon the evidence I've reviewed.
You're reaching conclusions based on "the evidence I've reviewed" when you've clearly reviewed far too little evidence to be reaching any conclusions. Also, often when pressed about your evidence you respond that such and such is just a hypothesis at this point.
Mostly what you've got at this point is Genesis and hope.
Sorry...it appears I may have misrepresented this.
this is the study I was thinking of. If I understand it correctly, it shows that much of the redundancy in the genome is not due to gene duplication. I was wrong in that it didn't have anything to do with frequency.
Are you sure that's the right reference? Only the abstract is available to non-subscribers of Science, and the abstract says nothing about redundancy. What I was questioning in your statement was that there was ever a prediction about the prevalence of gene duplication, let alone a revision downward.
Another poor choice of wording on my part. What I meant was: The evolutionary prediction that this type of adaptation requires large amounts of time is falsified by these studies.
I think you've been misinformed. There's nothing in evolutionary theory that predicts that bacteria should require a great deal of time to evolve. What evolution predicts is that imperfect reproduction will cause genetic changes to accumulate over time. The shorter the generations the faster genetic changes can accumulate.
Therefore, if common ancestry is true - why does it require billions of years to get from the first life to modern life?
Let's say one of your descendants a billion years from now were to ask, "Why did it take a billion years to get from Bob to me? If evolution is true, why wasn't I produced a long time ago?" What would you answer?
Maybe you want to rephrase your question?
Here's the link to a study demonstrating this. Remember: transposons are a type of semi-functional remnant VIGE in Borger's hypothesis.
Using the link you provided, please read your reference and then post a message explaining how transposons support Borger's hypothesis that the VIGE ancestors of these transposons directed the course of evolution, as opposed to selection based upon the environment. It must be true that environmentally influenced selection could not have been a factor because with accelerated evolution the environment could not have been rapidly changing at the same time. Or did ancient historians not only fail to note the rapid changes in the local flora and fauna, but also that one year they were living in a forest, the next in a desert, and the next in a tundra.
And of course the geological contradictions of how animals that evolved and went extinct since the flood came to be deeply buried beneath miles (in some cases) of sediment is off-topic in this thread.
--Percy