Take a look at this as an example:
Human: AGTACGATGGC T A CA
Chimp: AGTACTATGGC T A CG
Here we have an actual segmented sequence of the human genome and its chimpanzee equivalent. This is noted, and then G,T and A,G differences are called “substitutions” but why? In other words one has been substituted for the other.
They say one or the other is a mutation, only if that is true then which one? When asked if they qould please show when it was not mutated so we can SEE which one is the actual mutation, they cannot show us one example! Instead they then say it happened in a Common Ancestor.
So being told that and we also ask, “Okay fine, can you please show me a sample of their genome so I can compare the sequence”? So I can really see which one is the mutation and which one is not?” Again they cannot.
In fact, they cannot show us the Common Ancestor at all let, alone it’s genome, and here’s the thing, when pressured it turns out they have never seen it either! WHAT!!! So why do they believe it true as if it is true, and why teach this assumption to us as if it is an established fact, without actual demonstrable evidence that such a “substitution” actually occurred?
We’re just supposed to believe it because they told us it is true? No...show us!
To be confirmed to actually be substituted one would have to show they once were one thing, and now are another, and I have not seen this demonstrated in either the human or chimp genome (just that one differs from the other in these places) or in a common ancestor.
Now the burden is not on someone to show they are NOT substitutions (that is asking someone to prove a negative which is illogical) because they very well may be. But the claim is made that they ARE this and so the burden is theirs to demonstrate it (not just assume it based on a presupposed hypothesis or belief).
Here is another:
Human: AGTCGTACCAGTCGTACC
Chimp: AGTCATACCAGTCTACC
So via computer programs they separate the chimp genome after AGTC and then call the human G an insertion, or the lack thereof in the Chimp a deletion, but what if the difference is the whole idea? What if the two respective genomes are exactly what they are supposed to be and nothing was inserted or deleted?
Human: AGTCGTACCAGTCGTACC
Chimp: AGTCGTACCAGTC TACC
That gap does not really exist! If they were always a normal part of each respective genome, just as they are, one in one order with their sequence, and the other in their order with a different sequence. Thus always what it is in each (making each creature what they are uniquely), then there is no need to automatically assume one is inserted and/or the other is deleted.
One has to ASSUME that at one time the genomes were the same (in a Common Ancestor). Now to confirm it one must produce an example of the original model for comparison or else the whole assumption remains in the realm of the theoretical and hypothetical. You CAN see that makes sense can't you?
I mean in all cases of contract law any claims of insertions or deletions must be demonstrated to assure confirmation. The person or persons making the claim of an insertion or deletion into an existing contract or agreement, to demonstrate credibility of the claim, must produce an example of the earlier copy for comparison. If it can be seen that something previously not there now is, or that something previously there now is missing, then it is considered an insertion (to have been inserted) or a deletion (to have been deleted).
How can one prove a deletion in a data set? If we have access to the complete database by comparing earlier versions with the latest version we can easily detect a deletion with assurance. One can never assume a deletion without comparison to the earlier version. Hearsay, and opinion, regardless of alleged expertise, is not confirmation of the claim.
In accounting systems the same rule applies. If one claims an insertion or deletion into the record has taken place, confirmation can only be demonstrated when the auditor or examiner is allowed to see or discovers the earlier version which does or does not contain the insertion or deletion, and compare.
MacDonalds was once questioned on their claim that all their food was natural. After investigation it could be shown against the genome of a true actual russet potato that an insertion had occurred. They had inserted a segment of butterfly gene into their potato crop to fight a particular pestilence. But the insertion had been confirmed and so now they are quite honest about it.
In choosing a cloning vector, they must be small molecules because they are easier to manipulate. The sequence being inserted must be capable of prolific replication inside the recipient cell in order to enable the amplification of the inserted donor fragment.
Identifying such an insertion is easily confirmed. It is conformed because we can see how it was not there, and now is there! The same is true when we splice out a segment from an extant genome. We can confirm this actually happened by comparing the genome which previously contained the segment, with the same genome from which it is now deleted. Otherwise such a claim may be interpreted to suggest it happened, and dozens could even claim it happened, but that does not confirm it.
So...the ONLY way we can actually confirm that this is an insertion or deletion in the genomes is by showing something not there once, now is, or that something that was there, now is not. Can you see the sense of this? This is not unreasonable at all, In fact, it is totally logical!
We actually should be insulted to have them insist we accept it as true when they cannot show such an event took place in either the human or the chimp genome, and even less likely in some common ancestor. Yet they do and when people like me insist they SHOW ME? I am called all sorts of names...
Human: AGTACGATGGC T A CA
Chimp: AGTACTATGGC T A CG
Here we have an actual segmented sequence of the human genome and its chimpanzee equivalent. This is noted, and then G,T and A,G differences are called “substitutions” but why? In other words one has been substituted for the other.
They say one or the other is a mutation, only if that is true then which one? When asked if they qould please show when it was not mutated so we can SEE which one is the actual mutation, they cannot show us one example! Instead they then say it happened in a Common Ancestor.
So being told that and we also ask, “Okay fine, can you please show me a sample of their genome so I can compare the sequence”? So I can really see which one is the mutation and which one is not?” Again they cannot.
In fact, they cannot show us the Common Ancestor at all let, alone it’s genome, and here’s the thing, when pressured it turns out they have never seen it either! WHAT!!! So why do they believe it true as if it is true, and why teach this assumption to us as if it is an established fact, without actual demonstrable evidence that such a “substitution” actually occurred?
We’re just supposed to believe it because they told us it is true? No...show us!
To be confirmed to actually be substituted one would have to show they once were one thing, and now are another, and I have not seen this demonstrated in either the human or chimp genome (just that one differs from the other in these places) or in a common ancestor.
Now the burden is not on someone to show they are NOT substitutions (that is asking someone to prove a negative which is illogical) because they very well may be. But the claim is made that they ARE this and so the burden is theirs to demonstrate it (not just assume it based on a presupposed hypothesis or belief).
Here is another:
Human: AGTCGTACCAGTCGTACC
Chimp: AGTCATACCAGTCTACC
So via computer programs they separate the chimp genome after AGTC and then call the human G an insertion, or the lack thereof in the Chimp a deletion, but what if the difference is the whole idea? What if the two respective genomes are exactly what they are supposed to be and nothing was inserted or deleted?
Human: AGTCGTACCAGTCGTACC
Chimp: AGTCGTACCAGTC TACC
That gap does not really exist! If they were always a normal part of each respective genome, just as they are, one in one order with their sequence, and the other in their order with a different sequence. Thus always what it is in each (making each creature what they are uniquely), then there is no need to automatically assume one is inserted and/or the other is deleted.
One has to ASSUME that at one time the genomes were the same (in a Common Ancestor). Now to confirm it one must produce an example of the original model for comparison or else the whole assumption remains in the realm of the theoretical and hypothetical. You CAN see that makes sense can't you?
I mean in all cases of contract law any claims of insertions or deletions must be demonstrated to assure confirmation. The person or persons making the claim of an insertion or deletion into an existing contract or agreement, to demonstrate credibility of the claim, must produce an example of the earlier copy for comparison. If it can be seen that something previously not there now is, or that something previously there now is missing, then it is considered an insertion (to have been inserted) or a deletion (to have been deleted).
How can one prove a deletion in a data set? If we have access to the complete database by comparing earlier versions with the latest version we can easily detect a deletion with assurance. One can never assume a deletion without comparison to the earlier version. Hearsay, and opinion, regardless of alleged expertise, is not confirmation of the claim.
In accounting systems the same rule applies. If one claims an insertion or deletion into the record has taken place, confirmation can only be demonstrated when the auditor or examiner is allowed to see or discovers the earlier version which does or does not contain the insertion or deletion, and compare.
MacDonalds was once questioned on their claim that all their food was natural. After investigation it could be shown against the genome of a true actual russet potato that an insertion had occurred. They had inserted a segment of butterfly gene into their potato crop to fight a particular pestilence. But the insertion had been confirmed and so now they are quite honest about it.
In choosing a cloning vector, they must be small molecules because they are easier to manipulate. The sequence being inserted must be capable of prolific replication inside the recipient cell in order to enable the amplification of the inserted donor fragment.
Identifying such an insertion is easily confirmed. It is conformed because we can see how it was not there, and now is there! The same is true when we splice out a segment from an extant genome. We can confirm this actually happened by comparing the genome which previously contained the segment, with the same genome from which it is now deleted. Otherwise such a claim may be interpreted to suggest it happened, and dozens could even claim it happened, but that does not confirm it.
So...the ONLY way we can actually confirm that this is an insertion or deletion in the genomes is by showing something not there once, now is, or that something that was there, now is not. Can you see the sense of this? This is not unreasonable at all, In fact, it is totally logical!
We actually should be insulted to have them insist we accept it as true when they cannot show such an event took place in either the human or the chimp genome, and even less likely in some common ancestor. Yet they do and when people like me insist they SHOW ME? I am called all sorts of names...
Upvote
0