Are there any "problems" with the ToE that are generally not addressed?

When did "I can't read" become a legitimate rebuttal to arguments? Just curious.

Not to mention that, according to RB, fingerprint technology is "in it's infancy." After all, maybe living in the same environment as someone else might make you have the same fingerprints, too!

It's not really a mystery. As TalkOrigins says:

quote:

---

Functional sequences are not so rare and isolated. Experiments show that roughly 1 in 1011 of all random-sequence proteins have ATP-binding activity [Keefe and Szostak 2001], and theoretical work by Yockey [1992, 326-330] shows that, at this density, all functional sequences are connected by single amino acid changes. Furthermore, there are several kinds of mutations which change multiple amino acids at once.

---

Emphasis added by me. Even Denton agrees that there's no mystery to novel protein function:

quote:

---

"One of the most surprising discoveries which has arisen from DNA sequencing has been the remarkable finding that the genomes of all organisms are clustered very close together in a tiny region of DNA sequence space forming a tree of related sequences that can all be interconverted via a series of tiny incremental natural steps."

---

Sorry for the quote fest but you didn't really give me much of your own to go on. Try making arguments in your own words, using quotes to illustrate and support, not as the body of your message. No, all it shows is that, if it's true, banana cells and human cells employ half of the same protein products. That's all genes do, after all - generate proteins, or control the generation of proteins.We do, in fact, share 98% (or more) of our genes with chimpanzees; most relevant to evolution, we share a number of nonfunctional sequences in the "junk" reigons of the DNA. Just like several identical errors between two people's homework assignments tell you that they cheated off of the same source, these identical plagarized errors in our DNA and theirs conclusively substantiates our common ancestry.

While I agree that argument ad hominem is not appropriate, and that your respondent starts his post off with exactly that, that doesn't constitute the whole of his post. Instead, you appear to have used this single line to avoid addressing the substance of his rebuttals.While his dispersions about your source do not constitute a rebuttal, he made other arguments that do. You have a certain responsibility to defend your argument from those rebuttals; merely pointing out that one element of his post was not a rebuttal does not suffice.

Apparently it causes you to mistake facts for theories and ideas.Evolution is a theory that explains facts. Theories are made of facts. When we speak of the evidence or the observed results of a theory, those things are properly referred to as "facts."Just because evolution is a theory doesn't mean that when the word "evolution" appears in a sentence, we're speaking theoretically.