Mutations Confirm Common Descent

We must all appreciate the appropriate use of statistics with realistic interpretations.That can be rather rare in these parts. Thanks, Taq.

Isn't that precious. Some low-level know-nothing religionist moron is trying to tell us how the universe works.The poison pork is back on the shelves, boy. Don't swallow.

There is no such thing as a COFA or a CIFA because there is no FA. What kind of molecule is a frequency allele? How does it differ from an actual allele.There are statistical items for the frequency of specific alleles in a population's genome but that quantity is known as the allele frequency. There is no allele that determines frequency as a "frequency allele" would invoke. There is a percentage of an allele's presence in the population wide genome known as the frequency of that allele.There are statistical allele frequencies but there are no such structures as frequency alleles. You're getting your concepts mixed up trying to pre-set the stage for your bogus ID 2.0.

Is your conception of evolution that changes in allele frequency in the population is all there is? Does your ID2.0 have no mutation mechanism for the allele itself? Does your ID2.0 even recognize mutation as a source of new alleles with new functions? Do you even know the difference between allele frequency and allele mutation?

quote:

---

Darwin made it possible to become an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
-- Richard Dawkins

---

A most wonderful quip. And one you and your religious crazies think is dastardly while the rest of us understand the intellectual enlightenment. Feel free to spread it around.

Intelligent and sane people who understand a bit of chemistry, biology, reality, do not doubt that at all. Only the ignorant rant and rave against the facts.

Especially when stranded on Mars. For Jesus-meat-cracker consumers, yeah you're so embarrassed you try to deny it. To the rest of us apes such is both interesting and, in a sophomoric kinda way, funny.

Liar!He is not stupid like you. He give citations for his facts. He can generalize the paper's content all he wants. His source is stated.Besides a crippled mental midget you are a dishonest despicable debater.

No. Don't try that. You go to jail for screwing with the mail. Besides, I will cherish your gift.No, I'm not going to reciprocate. I don't like you all that much.

Posed a question, bullshit! You called his data plagiarism. You directly accused Taq of plagiarism.You know that. You are more deceitful and hypocritical than your god. If you don't know that then you are not fit for human interaction.You're dumb as a stump.

Just like your views on evolution and common descent you refuse to see the reality.You accused Taq of plagiarism and everyone saw it.

Spoken like a true christian nazi.

Clean your chin. You drooled dead-jesus meat all over it.

Human DNA is a pool of all the genes and their various alleles that exist in the population. By definition the human gene pool is all humans presently alive. From there new humans will be endowed with some combination of genes from this species-wide pool.What Taq maybe will tell you is that about 99+% of our genome is the same person to person. That last 1-% is what makes each of us unique individuals. With bonobos the shared percentage is down to 97-98% (?) the same genes in both human and primate gene pools.If I recall the numbers right I think we share about 60% of our gene pool with onions and other plants. Give or take.

What were you hoping to see in this data? What comparisons did you want to make with what expected result? Would you find significance to, say, a 99.865% sharing of genes vs a 99.832%?