Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
What about the DNA evidence?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Justatruthseeker" data-source="post: 64732890" data-attributes="member: 332164"><p>Again. no one is arguing variation of genes can't be made by mutation. We are arguing that no new genetic sequences that did not already exists can be made. Copy number variation is not the creation of new genes, merely errors in how the DNA sequence is written. It is a mere variation of what already existed. Every paper you can show me will have the words variation contained within them, because this is a truth they can not deny. They can try to fool you into believing it is a new sequence, but it is merely a <strong>variation of what already existed</strong>.</p><p></p><p>But evolution requires more than variation, since genes exist in complex life that do not exist in simple life. You must show that a new gene can be made, not merely a variation of a gene that already existed that they call a new type because that sequence did not exist before. A new sequence is not a new gene, it is merely a variation of how an existing gene is put together. It simply has more or less DNA sequnces than the original, but those sequences already existed, they are either duplicated or deleted, made recessive or dominant.</p><p></p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copy-number_variation" target="_blank">Copy-number variation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</a></p><p></p><p>"CNVs can be caused by structural rearrangements of the genome such as deletions, duplications, inversions, and translocations."</p><p></p><p>None of these imply the creation of a new gene, merely the variation of what already existed prior. This basic fact is something no evolutionary geneticists is able to overcome, no matter how they may double-talk and call it de novo gene sequences, when in reality it is mere structural rearrangement by deletions, duplications, inversions and translocations.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Justatruthseeker, post: 64732890, member: 332164"] Again. no one is arguing variation of genes can't be made by mutation. We are arguing that no new genetic sequences that did not already exists can be made. Copy number variation is not the creation of new genes, merely errors in how the DNA sequence is written. It is a mere variation of what already existed. Every paper you can show me will have the words variation contained within them, because this is a truth they can not deny. They can try to fool you into believing it is a new sequence, but it is merely a [B]variation of what already existed[/B]. But evolution requires more than variation, since genes exist in complex life that do not exist in simple life. You must show that a new gene can be made, not merely a variation of a gene that already existed that they call a new type because that sequence did not exist before. A new sequence is not a new gene, it is merely a variation of how an existing gene is put together. It simply has more or less DNA sequnces than the original, but those sequences already existed, they are either duplicated or deleted, made recessive or dominant. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copy-number_variation]Copy-number variation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url] "CNVs can be caused by structural rearrangements of the genome such as deletions, duplications, inversions, and translocations." None of these imply the creation of a new gene, merely the variation of what already existed prior. This basic fact is something no evolutionary geneticists is able to overcome, no matter how they may double-talk and call it de novo gene sequences, when in reality it is mere structural rearrangement by deletions, duplications, inversions and translocations. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
What about the DNA evidence?
Top
Bottom