With regard to evolution being caused by replication errors, insertion errors are more frequent than deletion?

Question

With regard to evolution being caused by replication errors, insertion errors are more frequent than deletion?

Answer 1

I've never seen anybody with half a brain claim "evolution is caused by replication errors."



And it's quite funny that you find "errors" evidence of "will" or "intent." Seriously, you don't see the irony in that?



Biologists already have all-natural explanations for the causes of all mutations (and there are a lot more than just insertion and replication errors). They result from the way the chemistry of DNA works and selection effects, not from any magical god.



Peace.

Answer 2

Your premise is just as bogus now as it was the last time you posted it.



There's no divine mystery here, the relative frequency of insertions with respect to deletions is explicable given the structure of DNA. DNA is difficult to stretch, but it's relatively easy to twist and fold and slide one strand against another, so it's much easier to make stretches appear shorter than they are, but tough to make them appear apparently longer. When this happens in replication, the result is that extra bases get added, and the disparities eventually get smoothed out either by DNA repair mechanisms or on the next cycle of replication, when the two strands are separated and form new complementary strands.

Answer 3

An explanation such as deletions are usually detrimental to organisms, while insertions are by and large neutral, so the setups which increase probability of deletions were weeded out by natural selection, but not the ones that cause insertions, that one?

Answer 4

It's a selection effect. Insertion errors are far more frequent in viable organisms, because they're less likely to be deadly.

Answer 5

Even if this is the case (which I don't know enough about biochemistry to confirm), the answer is still no. At best, it may be necessitated by the Anthropic Principle. At worst, it is merely an effect of our kind of life chemistry.

Answer 6

No. And neither does. You are trying to twist the explanations for evolution to include a sky daddy. And it doesn't need any sky daddy.

Answer 7

Evolution is easy to explain. Survival of the fittest. the weakest evolve to become stronger, its enemies counteract that by evolving again.

Answer 8

I'm sorry, but are you mentally stupid?

Answer 9

Evolutionary scientists mock creation and/or intelligent design as unscientific and not worthy of scientific examination. In order for something to be considered a “science,” they argue, it must be able to be observed and tested; it must be “naturalistic.” Creation is by definition “supernatural.” God and the supernatural cannot be observed or tested (so the argument goes); therefore, creation and/or intelligent design cannot be considered science. Of course, neither can evolution be observed or tested, but that does not seem to be an issue with evolutionists. As a result, all data is filtered through the preconceived, presupposed, and pre-accepted theory of evolution, without alternate explanations being considered.



However, the origin of the universe and the origin of life cannot be tested or observed. Both creation and evolution are faith-based systems in regards to origins. Neither can be tested because we cannot go back billions (or thousands) of years to observe the origin of the universe or of life in the universe. Evolutionary scientists reject creation on grounds that would logically force them to also reject evolution as a scientific explanation of origins. Evolution, at least in regard to origins, does not fit the definition of “science” any more than creation does. Evolution is supposedly the only explanation of origins that can be tested; therefore, it is the only theory of origins that can be considered “scientific.” This is foolishness! Scientists who advocate evolution are rejecting a plausible theory of origins without even honestly examining its merits, because it does not fit their illogically narrow definition of “science.”



If creation is true, then there is a Creator to whom we are accountable. Evolution is an enabler for atheism. Evolution gives atheists a basis for explaining how life exists apart from a Creator God. Evolution denies the need for a God to be involved in the universe. Evolution is the “creation theory” for the religion of atheism. According to the Bible, the choice is clear. We can believe the Word of our omnipotent and omniscient God, or we can believe the illogically biased, “scientific” explanations of fools.



Consider this

Darwin's Deadly Legacy (1 of 7)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mxXICZ9mXo&feature=related



Darwin's Deadly Legacy 2 of 7

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q60VX_cdX-g&feature=related



Darwin's Deadly Legacy 3 of 7

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fPJcyzq0To&feature=related



Darwin's Deadly Legacy 4 of 7

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiZeG8VYdLU&feature=related



Darwin's Deadly Legacy 5 of 7

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNmqMenRBqI&feature=related



Darwin's Deadly Legacy 6 of 7

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKAC1JMaiX0&feature=related



Darwin's Deadly Legacy 7 of 7

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bvjj4hSPPI&feature=related



Creation in the 21st Century - Overwhelming Evidence 1 of 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o226umqLdsU



Why do creationists feel sorry for delusionists?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d4b_1214585502