|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10385 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
Faith writes: All I see is assumptions that the differences between apes, such as chimps, and humans, are nothing but mutations. I gave you the evidence, and you refuse to even look at it.
And then Taq says the most bizarre things about how God would have had to use mutations or something **** that and I know we're in Never-Never Land and nothing is ever going to make sense. God couldn't use the same genome sequence in all species, could he? God would have had to use different genome sequences, right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1769 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Uh huh.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1769 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
If the designed genomes have different sequences then those differences are changes. See, this makes NO sense at all, NONE, ZIP. "Changes" from what? Each is UNIQUE, none has been CHANGED from another, each is a separate design. You do have a mental glitch that has your brain so hardwired to mutations you simply cannot think outside that box. AND WITH THAT BIZARRE PIECE OF CENSORSHIP BY PERCY I HAVE TO CONCLUDE THAT HE DOESN'T WANT TO SUSPEND ME DIRECTLY FOR SOME REASON SO HE'S DECIDED TO TAKE EVERY WORD IN THE DICTIONARY AWAY FROM ME ONE BY ONE UNTIL I CAN'T WRITE ANYTHING AT ALL. HE IS TRULY MAD. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8712 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
I've asked for any evidence that can change the structure of a genome, but all mutations can do is change what's IN the genome, What is the difference between structure of a genome and mutations that change what's IN the genome? What structure?
change one allele into another, but alleles determine traits that belong to the creature the genome belongs to Absolutely.
All I see is assumptions that the differences between apes, such as chimps, and humans, are nothing but mutations. What else would they be if not changes from a far earlier genome?
I know we're in Never-Never Land and nothing is ever going to make sense. Welcome to Earth, Human.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1769 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
YOu guys have no appreciation for the enormous amount of variability that exists in the millions/billions of genes in one genome each with only two alleles. It's enough to make all the cats from the cat genome, all the dogs from the dog genome (even counting all the junk DNA as other variations on a cat or a dog that got killed by mutations), there is no need for any mutations and all they do is get in the way of understanding what is really going on. If you don't see how you can never get anything BUT a cat from the cat genome or a chimp from the chimp genome I don't know how to make you see it.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8712 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
No one is arguing against the fact that the DNA space is as near infinite. That is not the issue.
What is the issue is what is the DNA space *available* under what circumstances. We don’t really care how many combinations there theoretically could be, we are only interested in the combinations that actually are.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1769 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
NO idea what you are talking about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8712 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
You were saying the genome is way big and can more then handle the number of alleles.
I was saying the genome *is* big but it is finite and that not every allele possible could be in there. So the ones that were not there to begin with had to get into this limited genome somehow. No one is arguing against cats make cats and chimps make chimps. We’re arguing that genomes change over time. Like everything else in this universe. Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1769 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You were saying the genome is way big and can more then handle the number of alleles. I was saying the genome *is* big but it is finite and that not every allele possible could be in there. So the ones that were not there to begin with had to get into this limited genome somehow. No one is arguing against cats make cats and chimps make chimps. We’re arguing that genomes change over time. Like everything else in this universe. I wasn't saying the [cat] genome can "more than handle the number of alleles," the point was that it originally had all the genetic stuff needed to make every kind of cat that exists now and ever existed. (most cat genomes now most likely have severely reduced genetic diversity BECAUSE so many species of cat have been made). So yes, every allele to make every possible cat is/was indeed in there from the beginning. And I count junk DNA as former alleles that contributed to the many kinds of cats, or dogs, or whatever though the variability in the genome without it is no doubt enough for everything that exists. Nothing additional "had to get into this limited genome somehow." I'm not saying genomes don't change but the way YOU think they change is not the way I think they change. I think they lose genetic diversity over time, and of course junk DNA in my model would be a record of lots of lost genetic diversity. ABE: So now I'm remembering that you think the more mutations the better, the more "alleles" there are floating around in a population the better. I don't think mutations contribute anything at all to a genemoe, I think they are superfluous at best. I believe the genetic system is broken the way all llfe is broken, with death and disease etc., and that mutations are a form of disease and also contribute to death of genetic variability. They may sometimes repeat a useful sequence or in the case of neutral mutations at least not change anything, but they are not necessary or useful. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8712 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
So your definition of change is more moving things around than creating something new? And yet you acknowledge that mutations, like SNPs, do happen. A single SNP would make a change. Make something new. Yes?
Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1769 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I forget what a SNP is.
Yes I don't think there's any need for anything new, at least not in the original genome, before death entered the world. My "definition of change" in the genome isn't so much "moving things around" as it is subtracting genetic diversity, and this is because of death. If death had not entered the world there would be no loss of genetic diversity and we would have a much larger range of interesting species/variations on every Kind. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8712 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
I believe the genetic system is broken the way all llfe is broken, with death and disease etc., and that mutations are a form of disease and also contribute to death of genetic variability. Thus the religion, Gloomy Jane.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1769 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yes the Creation dictates how the genetic facts should play out, and it's possible to put together a very coherent model from it. Do you deny that death and disease are a huge part of our existence? Not sure why having an explanation for it should be more "gloomy" than the facts themselves.
Anyway, there's no need for mutations in this model so they exist as mistakes or negative factors that can only be explained in terms of the death and disease in existence. So are you at the end of this discussion? Nothing more to say? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8712 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
When a discussion of this type gets to the level of religion it really is over.
The only thing left then is ridicule and I don't feel like making fun of my favorite demented crazy lady right now. Maybe later.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1769 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
But there is no need to discuss the religious basis of the theory, it should be possible to discuss the theory itself without all that. But right now I have to take a break anyway.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025