Contender's Edge (@ContendersEdge)

@[email protected] @CynicalBroadcast "Insertion is an ok term because there is the insertion of a nucleotide between 2 other nucleotides." I will concede that it makes sense when it comes to a displaced nucleotide being inserted between two others, but it is still an insertion associated with only internal activity and not external. When it comes to inserting yourself into something, it makes perfect sense because you are placing yourself into something of which you are not a part and foreign to. I just hope you are not inserting yourself into places that you haven't been allowed to. As far as scientific consensus goes, no matter how solid their claims may be, even a consensus can be wrong. It has happened before, even within the scientific community. It will happen again. While there are no doubt certain undeniable facts against which there is no argument, regardless of which side you stand on in the Creation/Evolution debate, no consensus is without error in every given matter. We have no problem questioning the decisions of our policy makers. We should then have no problem questioning the claims of our scientists and academics if we are given reason to question their claims. There is certainly no denying that mutations can occur (negative or neutral) and there is no denying that even positive selection can occur as well, but what may be positive under one set of circumstances may be negative under another. For example, dog with medium length hair has the genetic potential to produce offspring with long or short hair. In a hot desert climate, short hair will be beneficial whereas long hair will be a negative trait, but in a cold climate, the opposite is true: Long hair will turn out to be a positive under that circumstance, and short hair, negative. There is no question that DNA information can be recombined and transferred, but only the material that is available. You cannot recombine and transfer non-existent material. You admit that you can't have an amoeba turn into a man because they are both here, yet you claim both have a common ancestor. I presume that this common ancestor was a single-celled organism, but now the challenge is how does a genetic blueprint programmed to produce only single-celled organism become programmed to produce anything other than, especially life forms far more complex than a cell? As far as hybrids go, they have either limited or no reproductive capabilities at all and most hybridization is the product of experimental or selective breeding and does not routinely happen in nature. Could go on about that, but running out of space. And if the extra chromosome, in the case of down syndrome, is not a corruption, then why does it produce such bad results?