The Problem of Darwin and DNA

[Syriusly]

Just pointing out that Weather has once again posted a dump of pretty pictures but has not actually posted any science to support his claims.

And as always when his claims are refuted- he just refuses to accept the science.

 

[Coyote]

Feel free to link to a study showing new information can naturally add itself to DNA strands.
View attachment 92944

Evolution myths: Mutations can only destroy information


By Michael Le Page

Biologists are uncovering thousands of examples of how mutations lead to new traits and even new species. This claim not only flies in the face of the evidence, it is also a logical impossibility

Most people lose the ability to digest milk by their teens. A few thousand years ago, however, after the domestication of cattle, several groups of people in Europe and Africa independently acquired mutations that allow them to continue digesting milk into adulthood. Genetic studies show there has been very strong selection for these mutations, so they were clearly very beneficial.

Most biologists would see this as a gain in information: a change in environment (the availability of cow’s milk as food) is reflected by a genetic mutation that lets people exploit that change (gaining the ability to digest milk as an adult). Creationists, however, dismiss this as a malfunction, as the loss of the ability to switch off the production of the milk-digesting enzyme after childhood.

Evolution myths: Mutations can only destroy information

That is simply a modification of existing genes so that one becomes dominate.
Let me give you another example. Antibiotic bacteria we all hear about. Normally antibiotics work by the bacteria ingesting the antibiotic and it turning into a toxic substance inside the bacteria. With resistant bacteria, the DNA information that allowed it to ingest the antibiotic is now gone. Now new DNA information was created, it was removed.

That is simply a modification of existing genes

A modification that added new information.

No, as you state, people were already digesting the milk.

Now if you pointed out a population digesting steel, that would be something.

No, as you state, people were already digesting the milk.

Children.

An adult digesting it was new.

Actually...we always had the genes to digest it, it just gets switched off in adulthood in certain individuals I think..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Evolution myths: Mutations can only destroy information


By Michael Le Page

Biologists are uncovering thousands of examples of how mutations lead to new traits and even new species. This claim not only flies in the face of the evidence, it is also a logical impossibility

Most people lose the ability to digest milk by their teens. A few thousand years ago, however, after the domestication of cattle, several groups of people in Europe and Africa independently acquired mutations that allow them to continue digesting milk into adulthood. Genetic studies show there has been very strong selection for these mutations, so they were clearly very beneficial.

Most biologists would see this as a gain in information: a change in environment (the availability of cow’s milk as food) is reflected by a genetic mutation that lets people exploit that change (gaining the ability to digest milk as an adult). Creationists, however, dismiss this as a malfunction, as the loss of the ability to switch off the production of the milk-digesting enzyme after childhood.

Evolution myths: Mutations can only destroy information

That is simply a modification of existing genes so that one becomes dominate.
Let me give you another example. Antibiotic bacteria we all hear about. Normally antibiotics work by the bacteria ingesting the antibiotic and it turning into a toxic substance inside the bacteria. With resistant bacteria, the DNA information that allowed it to ingest the antibiotic is now gone. Now new DNA information was created, it was removed.

That is simply a modification of existing genes

A modification that added new information.

No, as you state, people were already digesting the milk.

Now if you pointed out a population digesting steel, that would be something.

No, as you state, people were already digesting the milk.

Children.

An adult digesting it was new.

Actually...we always had the genes to digest it, it just gets switched off in adulthood in certain individuals I think..

Even now, many humans of all ages cannot digest cow's milk.

 

[flacaltenn]

Just as I said in the OP, information can be duplicated, but never created.

Why not? How do you think the DNA was created in the first place? 6000 years ago in a day?

That'll be a different OP. But yes, each kind was created at one point in time and each kind has its own tree, but that tree is only of its kind.

As long as the tree is "Life", then we can agree. If you say it's a forest of individual trees which spontaneously generated, then I'd like to know your opinion of which this forest sprung and when since you don't agree with the common scientific explanations.

The two gentlemen who discovered the human genome both went into their work as atheists. One came out saying aliens started life here, the other says God did it. The point is, both see how things work on a level Darwin never knew existed and both see the impossibility of evolution as the cause.

Names please. I am curious whether either of these gentlemen ever denied Darwin's theory of evolution.

This is not a matter of denying Darwin his due for "natural selection". Because that is ONE form of evolution. He had no way to see other paths to evolution as we do now. Those of you that blindly accept the grade school notion that Darwin's "survival of fittest" is the unimpeachable end point of evolutionary science are as retarded as the folks who reject all evolution through faith.

All of what weatherman is saying is in 21st century versions of evolution. It is now accepted that mutation thru periods of intense cosmic ray bombardment, environmental chemical changes or even just normal stress on species can cause "spontaneous" spurts of evolutionary changes. These are stressors that can work MUCH FASTER then natural selection. And COULD account for a lot of the "MISSING" fossil records. Perhaps all these "missing links" existed for too short of a time to be discovered eons later.

Which leads to some interesting philosophical points about periods of "intense enviro change or rays from the cosmos" could be literally considered acts of God. I know that state farm defines "acts of God" in their policies.

It's fascinating to watch the sparring over Darwin. He has the same respect as ALL the 18th/19th century leaders of science do --- but the polititization of evolution sometimes keeps folks from realizing how little he actually knew about the MECHANISMS of evolution at the time he postulated all of that.

 

[flacaltenn]

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/642929-jumping-genes-helped-evolution

Local research theory gives further proof to evolution and may help explain big evolutionary jumps in species.

Murdoch Univeristy Professor Wayne Greene and PhD student Keith Oliver have posited that transposons —also known as jumping genes—have had a larger role in primate and human evolution than is traditionally thought.

Prof Greene says the theory will help strengthen the argument for evolution and may be useful in explaining and understanding the large-scale changes that occur in a species, known as macroevolution.

“You can understand microevolution, small scale changes with a few little mutations here and there, but to make the big jumps in evolution it is really hard to understand without major changes to genomes which jumping genes can facilitate,” he says.

http://books.google.com/books?id=VR...ping genes" mutation cosmic radiation&f=false

"The Three Big Bangs"-Dauber and Muller

Generally speaking, however, the molecular machinery that allows organisms to generate variety cannot run fast enough to respond to catastrophic changes in their environment. That is why mass extinctions due to extraterrestrial impacts force us to rethink evolution. An obsessive preoccupation with the question of "fitness" may have distracted scientists from examining the accumulating evidence for mass extinctions. As a result, we know think it likely that they have been misled for more than a hundred years. They have fooled themselves into thinking that the primary driving force of evolution has been competition among individuals and species under ORDINARY circumstances, when in fact the driving force has been another phenomenon entirely.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Feel free to link to where DNA strands obtain new information.

Nylon-eating bacteria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That bacteria already existed. Try again.

They existed, but they couldn't eat nylon before.
That's new information.

No, nylon is a new creation of man, and finding a bacteria that can eat it is mere coincidence.

Nope. The enzyme to digest nylon did not exist before. It does now.

Other studies show there was nothing new added. In fact, the genes of nylon-eating bacteria show that they have been degraded through mutation.

The gene that mutated to enable bacteria to metabolize nylon is on a small loop of exchangeable DNA. This gene, prior to its mutation, coded for a protein called EII with a special ability to break down small, circularized proteins. Though synthetic, nylon is very protein-like because inventor Wallace Carothers modeled the original fiber based on known protein chemistry. Thus, after the mutation, the new EII protein was able to interact with both circular and straightened-out nylon. This is a clear example of a loss of specification of the original enzyme. It is like damaging the interior of a lock so that more and different keys can now unlock it.

This degeneration of a protein-eating protein required both the specially-shaped protein and the pre-existence of its gene. The degeneration of a gene, even when it provides a new benefit to the bacteria, does not explain the origin of that gene. One cannot build a lock by damaging pre-existing locks. Nylon-eating bacteria actually exemplify microevolution (adaptation), not macroevolution.

1. Yasuhira, K. et al, 2007. 6-Aminohexanoate Oligomer Hydrolases from the Alkalophilic Bacteria Agromyes sp. Strain KY5R and Kocuria sp. Strain KY2. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 73 (21): 7099-7102.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Feel free to link to a study showing new information can naturally add itself to DNA strands.
View attachment 92944

Evolution myths: Mutations can only destroy information


By Michael Le Page

Biologists are uncovering thousands of examples of how mutations lead to new traits and even new species. This claim not only flies in the face of the evidence, it is also a logical impossibility

Most people lose the ability to digest milk by their teens. A few thousand years ago, however, after the domestication of cattle, several groups of people in Europe and Africa independently acquired mutations that allow them to continue digesting milk into adulthood. Genetic studies show there has been very strong selection for these mutations, so they were clearly very beneficial.

Most biologists would see this as a gain in information: a change in environment (the availability of cow’s milk as food) is reflected by a genetic mutation that lets people exploit that change (gaining the ability to digest milk as an adult). Creationists, however, dismiss this as a malfunction, as the loss of the ability to switch off the production of the milk-digesting enzyme after childhood.

Evolution myths: Mutations can only destroy information

That is simply a modification of existing genes so that one becomes dominate.
Let me give you another example. Antibiotic bacteria we all hear about. Normally antibiotics work by the bacteria ingesting the antibiotic and it turning into a toxic substance inside the bacteria. With resistant bacteria, the DNA information that allowed it to ingest the antibiotic is now gone. Now new DNA information was created, it was removed.

That is simply a modification of existing genes

A modification that added new information.

No, as you state, people were already digesting the milk.

Now if you pointed out a population digesting steel, that would be something.

No, as you state, people were already digesting the milk.

Children.

An adult digesting it was new.

Last I checked children become adults with the same DNA.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Just as I said in the OP, information can be duplicated, but never created.

Why not? How do you think the DNA was created in the first place? 6000 years ago in a day?

That'll be a different OP. But yes, each kind was created at one point in time and each kind has its own tree, but that tree is only of its kind.

As long as the tree is "Life", then we can agree. If you say it's a forest of individual trees which spontaneously generated, then I'd like to know your opinion of which this forest sprung and when since you don't agree with the common scientific explanations.

The two gentlemen who discovered the human genome both went into their work as atheists. One came out saying aliens started life here, the other says God did it. The point is, both see how things work on a level Darwin never knew existed and both see the impossibility of evolution as the cause.

You're leaping to conclusions without any supporting evidence. It's one thing to say life spontaneously generated from rock, it's another to say once life existed, it naturally evolved into more complex forms.

You miss the point. Both discoverers of the human genome do not believe in evolution into other species any more.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Your evidence is zero. If you have evidence, show it or accept the OP.

Except you haven't proven the OP- you made claims that you haven't substantiated.

I've used simple known science.

Youve only used your simple minded opinions so far. Like when you claimed DNA could have no additions.

Feel free to link to a study showing new information can naturally add itself to DNA strands.
View attachment 92944

I believe virus can add new information. Our Inner Viruses: Forty Million Years In the Making

A virus is still a virus, 40 million years or not.

 

[Divine Wind]

You miss the point. Both discoverers of the human genome do not believe in evolution into other species any more.

Ummm, that's not what I got from it. Again, there's a difference between spontaneous generation of life and the evolution of life. Religious people can believe God is powerful enough to cause the Big Bang 13.8+ Billion years ago and know that life would spring forth. Then again, some take the Bible literally and believe "Science" is the work of Satan.

 

[Weatherman2020]

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/642929-jumping-genes-helped-evolution

Local research theory gives further proof to evolution and may help explain big evolutionary jumps in species.

Murdoch Univeristy Professor Wayne Greene and PhD student Keith Oliver have posited that transposons —also known as jumping genes—have had a larger role in primate and human evolution than is traditionally thought.

Prof Greene says the theory will help strengthen the argument for evolution and may be useful in explaining and understanding the large-scale changes that occur in a species, known as macroevolution.

“You can understand microevolution, small scale changes with a few little mutations here and there, but to make the big jumps in evolution it is really hard to understand without major changes to genomes which jumping genes can facilitate,” he says.

http://books.google.com/books?id=VRbjvoo4xfsC&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&dq=evolution+"jumping+genes"+mutation+cosmic+radiation&source=bl&ots=wN7GbqQTZu&sig=lgTcz05mrGV7PydmSPbL5vRdniQ&hl=en&ei=x-FqTv3xAeTY0QGIvuHlBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=evolution "jumping genes" mutation cosmic radiation&f=false

"The Three Big Bangs"-Dauber and Muller

Generally speaking, however, the molecular machinery that allows organisms to generate variety cannot run fast enough to respond to catastrophic changes in their environment. That is why mass extinctions due to extraterrestrial impacts force us to rethink evolution. An obsessive preoccupation with the question of "fitness" may have distracted scientists from examining the accumulating evidence for mass extinctions. As a result, we know think it likely that they have been misled for more than a hundred years. They have fooled themselves into thinking that the primary driving force of evolution has been competition among individuals and species under ORDINARY circumstances, when in fact the driving force has been another phenomenon entirely.

Mass extinctions and fossils is another thread I will start, sure to get the same polarized responses as this. The amount of tweaking of data and conclusions over the decades to make the current popular theory works is eye opening for those who are willing to see. We all look at the same evidence, which I will present as I did here, with shaded glasses and get different conclusions. The question is how tinted are our glasses.

 

[Syriusly]

Why not? How do you think the DNA was created in the first place? 6000 years ago in a day?

That'll be a different OP. But yes, each kind was created at one point in time and each kind has its own tree, but that tree is only of its kind.

As long as the tree is "Life", then we can agree. If you say it's a forest of individual trees which spontaneously generated, then I'd like to know your opinion of which this forest sprung and when since you don't agree with the common scientific explanations.

The two gentlemen who discovered the human genome both went into their work as atheists. One came out saying aliens started life here, the other says God did it. The point is, both see how things work on a level Darwin never knew existed and both see the impossibility of evolution as the cause.

You're leaping to conclusions without any supporting evidence. It's one thing to say life spontaneously generated from rock, it's another to say once life existed, it naturally evolved into more complex forms.

You miss the point. Both discoverers of the human genome do not believe in evolution into other species any more.

Why not? How do you think the DNA was created in the first place? 6000 years ago in a day?

That'll be a different OP. But yes, each kind was created at one point in time and each kind has its own tree, but that tree is only of its kind.

As long as the tree is "Life", then we can agree. If you say it's a forest of individual trees which spontaneously generated, then I'd like to know your opinion of which this forest sprung and when since you don't agree with the common scientific explanations.

The two gentlemen who discovered the human genome both went into their work as atheists. One came out saying aliens started life here, the other says God did it. The point is, both see how things work on a level Darwin never knew existed and both see the impossibility of evolution as the cause.

Names please. I am curious whether either of these gentlemen ever denied Darwin's theory of evolution.

This is not a matter of denying Darwin his due for "natural selection". Because that is ONE form of evolution. He had no way to see other paths to evolution as we do now. Those of you that blindly accept the grade school notion that Darwin's "survival of fittest" is the unimpeachable end point of evolutionary science are as retarded as the folks who reject all evolution through faith.t.

I think you are giving Weather too much credit.

Weather has made some large unsubstantiated claims- and has danced from them ever since.

I am not sure who you are talking to when you tell me 'those of you that blindly accept' when it comes to Darwin's theories- Darwin was one of the two men who bundled up and put together a coherent theory of evolution that revolutionary for its time, and amazingly prescient in what it predicted given the tools at Darwin's disposal.

It would be amazing if Darwin got everything right- but the general theory that he produced- that organisms evolve from other organisms remains intact.

 

[Weatherman2020]

You miss the point. Both discoverers of the human genome do not believe in evolution into other species any more.

Ummm, that's not what I got from it. Again, there's a difference between spontaneous generation of life and the evolution of life. Religious people can believe God is powerful enough to cause the Big Bang 13.8+ Billion years ago and know that life would spring forth. Then again, some take the Bible literally and believe "Science" is the work of Satan.

I know of no one who believes science is anti-God. Yeah there probably are kooks out there, people think Elvis is alive too so don't start linking.

God created science so science and God dovetail each other. Mind boggling you say? It's not. Everything we learn supports the Judeo-Christian documents we call the Bible. 50 years ago science said the universe always existed. Now science says it had a beginning. We already knew that. The supporting evidence is repeated many times.

 

[Syriusly]

Why not? How do you think the DNA was created in the first place? 6000 years ago in a day?

That'll be a different OP. But yes, each kind was created at one point in time and each kind has its own tree, but that tree is only of its kind.

As long as the tree is "Life", then we can agree. If you say it's a forest of individual trees which spontaneously generated, then I'd like to know your opinion of which this forest sprung and when since you don't agree with the common scientific explanations.

The two gentlemen who discovered the human genome both went into their work as atheists. One came out saying aliens started life here, the other says God did it. The point is, both see how things work on a level Darwin never knew existed and both see the impossibility of evolution as the cause.

You're leaping to conclusions without any supporting evidence. It's one thing to say life spontaneously generated from rock, it's another to say once life existed, it naturally evolved into more complex forms.

You miss the point. Both discoverers of the human genome do not believe in evolution into other species any more.

Still waiting for those names.

 

[Weatherman2020]

That'll be a different OP. But yes, each kind was created at one point in time and each kind has its own tree, but that tree is only of its kind.

As long as the tree is "Life", then we can agree. If you say it's a forest of individual trees which spontaneously generated, then I'd like to know your opinion of which this forest sprung and when since you don't agree with the common scientific explanations.

The two gentlemen who discovered the human genome both went into their work as atheists. One came out saying aliens started life here, the other says God did it. The point is, both see how things work on a level Darwin never knew existed and both see the impossibility of evolution as the cause.

You're leaping to conclusions without any supporting evidence. It's one thing to say life spontaneously generated from rock, it's another to say once life existed, it naturally evolved into more complex forms.

You miss the point. Both discoverers of the human genome do not believe in evolution into other species any more.

That'll be a different OP. But yes, each kind was created at one point in time and each kind has its own tree, but that tree is only of its kind.

As long as the tree is "Life", then we can agree. If you say it's a forest of individual trees which spontaneously generated, then I'd like to know your opinion of which this forest sprung and when since you don't agree with the common scientific explanations.

The two gentlemen who discovered the human genome both went into their work as atheists. One came out saying aliens started life here, the other says God did it. The point is, both see how things work on a level Darwin never knew existed and both see the impossibility of evolution as the cause.

Names please. I am curious whether either of these gentlemen ever denied Darwin's theory of evolution.

This is not a matter of denying Darwin his due for "natural selection". Because that is ONE form of evolution. He had no way to see other paths to evolution as we do now. Those of you that blindly accept the grade school notion that Darwin's "survival of fittest" is the unimpeachable end point of evolutionary science are as retarded as the folks who reject all evolution through faith.t.

I think you are giving Weather too much credit.

Weather has made some large unsubstantiated claims- and has danced from them ever since.

I am not sure who you are talking to when you tell me 'those of you that blindly accept' when it comes to Darwin's theories- Darwin was one of the two men who bundled up and put together a coherent theory of evolution that revolutionary for its time, and amazingly prescient in what it predicted given the tools at Darwin's disposal.

It would be amazing if Darwin got everything right- but the general theory that he produced- that organisms evolve from other organisms remains intact.

You need to first supply the evidence that DNA information naturally self creates and adds itself to existing DNA.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nylon-eating bacteria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That bacteria already existed. Try again.

They existed, but they couldn't eat nylon before.
That's new information.

No, nylon is a new creation of man, and finding a bacteria that can eat it is mere coincidence.

Nope. The enzyme to digest nylon did not exist before. It does now.

Other studies show there was nothing new added. In fact, the genes of nylon-eating bacteria show that they have been degraded through mutation.

The gene that mutated to enable bacteria to metabolize nylon is on a small loop of exchangeable DNA. This gene, prior to its mutation, coded for a protein called EII with a special ability to break down small, circularized proteins. Though synthetic, nylon is very protein-like because inventor Wallace Carothers modeled the original fiber based on known protein chemistry. Thus, after the mutation, the new EII protein was able to interact with both circular and straightened-out nylon. This is a clear example of a loss of specification of the original enzyme. It is like damaging the interior of a lock so that more and different keys can now unlock it.

This degeneration of a protein-eating protein required both the specially-shaped protein and the pre-existence of its gene. The degeneration of a gene, even when it provides a new benefit to the bacteria, does not explain the origin of that gene. One cannot build a lock by damaging pre-existing locks. Nylon-eating bacteria actually exemplify microevolution (adaptation), not macroevolution.

1. Yasuhira, K. et al, 2007. 6-Aminohexanoate Oligomer Hydrolases from the Alkalophilic Bacteria Agromyes sp. Strain KY5R and Kocuria sp. Strain KY2. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 73 (21): 7099-7102.

Other studies show there was nothing new added.

That's funny.

In fact, the genes of nylon-eating bacteria show that they have been degraded through mutation.

Adding new info is degrading? That's funny too.

The degeneration of a gene, even when it provides a new benefit to the bacteria, does not explain the origin of that gene.

Who said it did? Where?

Nylon-eating bacteria actually exemplify microevolution (adaptation),

Yup, new info = adaptation.

 

[Syriusly]

[ Everything we learn supports the Judeo-Christian documents we call the Bible.

Really?

So science supports a flood that covered the entire earth?

A flood that killed all but two of every species in the world?

So science supports the creation of life on earth- before the sun and other stars were created?

Tell me how science supports the conversion of plain water into wine by divine influence?

I don't know why folks like you feel like you need scientific validation for your religious beliefs.

But claiming that science supports the idea that humans were created before the sun was.....

 

[Coyote]

Except you haven't proven the OP- you made claims that you haven't substantiated.

I've used simple known science.

Youve only used your simple minded opinions so far. Like when you claimed DNA could have no additions.

Feel free to link to a study showing new information can naturally add itself to DNA strands.
View attachment 92944

I believe virus can add new information. Our Inner Viruses: Forty Million Years In the Making

A virus is still a virus, 40 million years or not.

Virus' add new dna to existing host dna thus naturally adding new information,

 

[Syriusly]

As long as the tree is "Life", then we can agree. If you say it's a forest of individual trees which spontaneously generated, then I'd like to know your opinion of which this forest sprung and when since you don't agree with the common scientific explanations.

The two gentlemen who discovered the human genome both went into their work as atheists. One came out saying aliens started life here, the other says God did it. The point is, both see how things work on a level Darwin never knew existed and both see the impossibility of evolution as the cause.

You're leaping to conclusions without any supporting evidence. It's one thing to say life spontaneously generated from rock, it's another to say once life existed, it naturally evolved into more complex forms.

You miss the point. Both discoverers of the human genome do not believe in evolution into other species any more.

As long as the tree is "Life", then we can agree. If you say it's a forest of individual trees which spontaneously generated, then I'd like to know your opinion of which this forest sprung and when since you don't agree with the common scientific explanations.

The two gentlemen who discovered the human genome both went into their work as atheists. One came out saying aliens started life here, the other says God did it. The point is, both see how things work on a level Darwin never knew existed and both see the impossibility of evolution as the cause.

Names please. I am curious whether either of these gentlemen ever denied Darwin's theory of evolution.

This is not a matter of denying Darwin his due for "natural selection". Because that is ONE form of evolution. He had no way to see other paths to evolution as we do now. Those of you that blindly accept the grade school notion that Darwin's "survival of fittest" is the unimpeachable end point of evolutionary science are as retarded as the folks who reject all evolution through faith.t.

I think you are giving Weather too much credit.

Weather has made some large unsubstantiated claims- and has danced from them ever since.

I am not sure who you are talking to when you tell me 'those of you that blindly accept' when it comes to Darwin's theories- Darwin was one of the two men who bundled up and put together a coherent theory of evolution that revolutionary for its time, and amazingly prescient in what it predicted given the tools at Darwin's disposal.

It would be amazing if Darwin got everything right- but the general theory that he produced- that organisms evolve from other organisms remains intact.

You need to first supply the evidence that DNA information naturally self creates and adds itself to existing DNA.
H]

No- I really don't. So far- as usual- you haven't provided any proof for your claims

Weather has made some large unsubstantiated claims- and has danced from them ever since.

I am not sure who you are talking to when you tell me 'those of you that blindly accept' when it comes to Darwin's theories- Darwin was one of the two men who bundled up and put together a coherent theory of evolution that revolutionary for its time, and amazingly prescient in what it predicted given the tools at Darwin's disposal.

It would be amazing if Darwin got everything right- but the general theory that he produced- that organisms evolve from other organisms remains intact

 

[Weatherman2020]

That'll be a different OP. But yes, each kind was created at one point in time and each kind has its own tree, but that tree is only of its kind.

As long as the tree is "Life", then we can agree. If you say it's a forest of individual trees which spontaneously generated, then I'd like to know your opinion of which this forest sprung and when since you don't agree with the common scientific explanations.

The two gentlemen who discovered the human genome both went into their work as atheists. One came out saying aliens started life here, the other says God did it. The point is, both see how things work on a level Darwin never knew existed and both see the impossibility of evolution as the cause.

You're leaping to conclusions without any supporting evidence. It's one thing to say life spontaneously generated from rock, it's another to say once life existed, it naturally evolved into more complex forms.

You miss the point. Both discoverers of the human genome do not believe in evolution into other species any more.

Still waiting for those names.

I'll do better. Here is Dr Watsons story of his conversion to Christianity.

Collins: Why this scientist believes in God - CNN.com