Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 1 Corinthians 1:20
"University of Bath ......“Scientists have found that chance events can be more important than natural selection in defining the genome of species like humans and other mammals,” they say.
They looked at three “stop codons” in yeast and in mammals.
Yeast use TAA, which the scientists claim is the more efficient one. Mammals have more instances of TGA and TAG, the other two stop codons.
The interpretation of this tiny winy, teensy weensy bit of analysis can only mean one thing: people are rusting.
---They merely assume that natural selection would have preferred TAA, but they don’t know that.
---Sometimes there is a reason for a slower process in a much more complex machine.
These guys don’t even know their own evolutionary theory.
---Wasn’t natural selection supposed to be “daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, the slightest variations; rejecting those that are bad, preserving or adding up all that are good,” like Darwin said?
---Their idea doesn’t matter anyway, because natural selection is all chance, too; it has no direction or aim anyway."
CEH
"University of Bath ......“Scientists have found that chance events can be more important than natural selection in defining the genome of species like humans and other mammals,” they say.
If evolution selects for the fittest organisms, why do we still have imperfections? Scientists at the Milner Centre for Evolution at the University of Bath investigating this question have found that in species with small populations, chance events take precedence over natural selection, allowing imperfections to creep in.So what empirical evidence to use for this excuse of a theory?
They looked at three “stop codons” in yeast and in mammals.
Yeast use TAA, which the scientists claim is the more efficient one. Mammals have more instances of TGA and TAG, the other two stop codons.
The interpretation of this tiny winy, teensy weensy bit of analysis can only mean one thing: people are rusting.
“Our work shows that natural selection in humans is not very efficient and so our DNA ends up similar to an ancient rusting motor car – just able to function, with all sorts of bad repairs and accretions built up over time. Yeast instead is more like an organism straight out of the showroom: the perfect machine.”---Should they not have asked different questions, like perhaps there is a reason for more complex animals to use more stop codons?
---They merely assume that natural selection would have preferred TAA, but they don’t know that.
---Sometimes there is a reason for a slower process in a much more complex machine.
These guys don’t even know their own evolutionary theory.
---Wasn’t natural selection supposed to be “daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, the slightest variations; rejecting those that are bad, preserving or adding up all that are good,” like Darwin said?
---Their idea doesn’t matter anyway, because natural selection is all chance, too; it has no direction or aim anyway."
CEH
