What is the mechanism to stop "kinds"from turning into other "kinds"?

[yeshuaslavejeff]

So Yahweh has been pleased to not take care of me.

Yahweh sent His Son Jesus to be born in a generation of evil men, to live among wicked men, to be crucified by wicked men, to die and be raised from the dead never to die again.

Those who turn TO HIM are healed - Jesus says HE will not reject ANYONE who turnst to HIM.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You're the one making the argument, thus I'm asking you the questions. Answering questions with questions is poor debate form and merely demonstrates a bankrupt argument.

we agree, answering questions with questions while refusing to answer the ones proffered to you shows you are bankrupt. Refusing to answer questions and putting you stance on paper is an old tactic, one you should be unworthy of if you have the facts to back up your case.

Ill ask again.

Have you seen Asian become anything but Asian regardless of the number of mutations?

Once again, what exactly do you mean by 'variation'? Instead of answering a question with a question, just articulate what you mean. It shouldn't be this difficult. You've already mentioned genes, it should be a short hop to a proper answer.

I would think the differences between an Asian and an African would explain what variation is quite well.

 

[tas8831]

Adam contained all the genetic traits of every race.

1. How is that possible?
2. what is the evidence for this?

Half of his genome was used to create Eve.

Humans cannot survive as either haploid or polyploid. Your assertions fail.

Hence the two shall become one flesh. This is why those E coli regardless of the mutations they underwent remained E coli. They had no infusion of new genetic material as when two subspecies mate. There were two subspecies to begin with, not a single solitary organism.

But you just said that Adam lost half his genome in making Eve.

And by the way - E. coli do not mate.

Your starting point is flawed. Not simple to complex, but complete separated into two.

Didn't you earlier admonish others to learn some biology?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Of course, the mysterious "super genome", how could I forget that one. Remind me, is there any evidence of this present in any organism's DNA today you can point to?

Have you ever seen any new DNA arise?

Didnt think so, let me see, all you have seen is the copying of what already exists, correct?

 

[Jimmy D]

They can watch for 10,000 years and never see any evolution.

Do you include adaptation in that?

 

[Jimmy D]

Have you ever seen any new DNA arise?

Didnt think so, let me see, all you have seen is the copying of what already exists, correct?

What I've seen arise has got nothing to do with your claim, how about answering the question? Your diversion tactics are puerile and transparent.

 

[tas8831]

Have you ever seen any new DNA arise?

Didnt think so, let me see, all you have seen is the copying of what already exists, correct?

Lots of 'new DNA' arises DURING copying.

Surely, one who claims others need to learn some biology understands how things like duplications and insertions occur?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

1. How is that possible?
2. what is the evidence for this?

Ask God, he is the one that did it.

Humans cannot survive as either haploid or polyploid. Your assertions fail.

Ever seen a child born that didnt receive half his genes from the father and half from the mother? Thought not. That you failed to understand what complete meant is not my fault, nor half into Eve.

What Adam was is not what you and I are. Adam was created perfect.

But you just said that Adam lost half his genome in making Eve.

And he did, what was in Eve once was all contained in Adam. This is why it takes a male and female to produce children.

And by the way - E. coli do not mate.

And forever remain e coli of the same subspecies.

Didn't you earlier admonish others to learn some biology?

Apparently you missed the class, or just chose to miss the point made.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What I've seen arise has got nothing to do with your claim, how about answering the question? Your diversion tactics are puerile and transparent.

It is you trying to diverse. Have you ever seen new DNA arise? Have you ever seen life arise except by copying what already existed?

Than why try to pretend otherwise? Knowing how life propagates you should know that only what already exists is used to create another life. Ignore observational facts at your peril.

Try to ignore what you know is fact all you like, wont change the facts that only what already exists is used.

 

[Jimmy D]

It is you trying to diverse. Have you ever seen new DNA arise? Have you ever seen life arise except by copying what already existed?

Than why try to pretend otherwise? Knowing how life propagates you should know that only what already exists is used to create another life. Ignore observational facts at your peril.

No evidence.... check. It would have been easier to just say so.

If you want to discuss DNA I suggest you address Tas, not me, he's much more knowledgeable on the subject.

 

[tas8831]

Lets look at the evidence.

Ok...

E coli after generations of mutations remained E coli.

E. coli with new abilities and such. What constitutes the generation of a new species?

You seem to be claiming that all living things are static in their little slices of life - e. coli always e. coli, oak trees always oak trees, blue whales always blue whales - is this your position?

Asian regardless of the amount of mutations remain Asian. T-Rex remained T-Rex from the oldest fossil found to the youngest.

Are you aware that fossils are not the only line of evidence for evolution?

The only evidence you can give that one things becomes another is claims that common ancestors split, even if every single one of those common ancestors is missing on every single evolutionary tree...

I ask you, what evidence indeed?

Actually, it is based, for me, on things like this list I came across elsewhere:

Anat Rec. 1977 Aug;188(4):477-87.
Sperm/egg interaction: the specificity of human spermatozoa.
Bedford JM.
Abstract
Human spermatozoa display unusually limited affinities in their interaction with oocytes of other species. They adhered to and, when capacitated, penetrated the vestments of the oocyte of an ape--the gibbon, Hylobates lar--both in vivo and in vitro. On the other hand, human spermatozoa would not even attach to the zona surface of sub-hominoid primate (baboon, rhesus monkey, squirrel monkey), nor to the non-primate eutherian oocytes tested. Among the apes the gibbon stands furthest from man. Thus, although the specificity of human spermatozoa is not confined to man alone, it probably is restricted to the Hominoidea. This study also suggests that the evolution of man and perhaps the other hominids has been accompanied by a restrictive change in the nature of the sperm surface which has limited and made more specific the complementary surface to which their spermatozoa may adhere. For the failure of human spermatozoa to attach to the zona surface of all non-hominoid oocytes stands in contrast to the behaviour of spermatozoa of the several other mammals studied which, in most combinations, adhered readily to foreign oocytes, including those of man. Taxonomically, the demonstration of a compatibility between the gametes of man and gibbon, not shared with cercopithecids, constitutes further evidence for inclusion of the Hylobatidae within the Hominoidea.
Amino acid sequence data also supported the close affinity of humans-chimps-gorillas in 1985 (and earlier) -

"PHYLOGENY OF PRIMATES AND OTHER EUTHERIAN ORDERS: A CLADISTIC ANALYSIS USING AMINO ACID AND NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCE DATA"
Abstract— Genealogical reconstructions carried out by the parsimony method on protein amino acid and DNA nucleotide sequence data are providing fresh evidence on cladistic branching patterns at taxonomic levels from the classes of Vertebrata and orders of Eutheria to the genera of Hominoidea. Minimum length trees constructed from amino acid sequence data group Mammalia with Archosauria (i.e., Aves plus Crocodilia), Amniota with Amphibia, and Tetrapoda with Teleostei. Within Mammalia, Edentata and Paenungulata (e.g., Proboscidea) appear as the most anciently separated from other eutherians. Another superordinal eutherian clade consists of Artiodactyla, Cetacea, and Perissodactyla. A third consistently contains Primates, Lagomorpha, and Tupaia. The cladistic positions of such orders as Carnivora, Chiroptera, Insectivora, and Rodentia are not well resolved by the currently still sparse body of sequence data. However, recent dramatic progress in the technology of gene cloning and nucleotide sequencing has opened the way for so enlarging the body of sequence data that it should become possible to solve almost any problem concerning the phylogenetic systematice of extant mammals. An example is provided by hominoid genera. Minimum length trees constructed from mitochondrial DNA nucleotide sequence data very strongly group Pan, Homo, and Gorilla into Homininae and then join Homininae and Ponginae (pongo) into Hominidae as the sister family of Hylobatidae (Hylobates). Resolution of the hominine trichotomy into two dichotomous branchings should be forthcoming as kilobase sequencing of nuclear genes progresses.
And of course DNA sequence data has been the icing on the cake - starting with analyses of the entire single-copy genome -

J Mol Evol. 1990 Mar;30(3):202-36.
DNA hybridization evidence of hominoid phylogeny: a reanalysis of the data.
Sibley CG1, Comstock JA, Ahlquist JE.

Abstract
Sibley and Ahlquist (1984, 1987) presented the results of a study of 514 DNA-DNA hybrids among the hominoids and Old World monkeys (Cercopithecidae). They concluded that the branching order of the living hominoid lineages, from oldest to most recent, was gibbons, orangutan, gorilla, chimpanzees, and human. Thus, a chimpanzee-human clade was indicated, rather than the chimpanzee-gorilla clade usually suggested from morphological evidence. The positions of the gibbon and orangutan branches in the phylogeny are supported by substantial evidence, but whether the chimpanzee lineage branched most recently from the human lineage or from the gorilla lineage remains controversial. The conclusions of Sibley and Ahlquist (1984, 1987) have been supported by several independent studies cited by Sibley and Ahlquist (1987), plus the DNA sequence data of Hayasaka et al. (1988), Miyamoto et al. (1988), Goodman et al. (1989, 1990), and the DNA-DNA hybridization data of Caccone and Powell (1989). The laboratory and data analysis methods have been criticized by Marks et al. (1988) and Sarich et al. (1989). In response to these critics, and for our own interests, we present a reanalysis of the Sibley and Ahlquist data, including a description of the corrections applied to the "raw counts." The validity of the laboratory methods is supported by the congruence of tree topology and delta values with those of Caccone and Powell (1989), although their tetraethylammonium chloride technique differs from the hydroxyapatite method in several respects. The utility of the T50H distance measure is indicated by its congruence with percent sequence divergence at least to delta T50H 30, as noted by Goodman et al. (1990). The Sibley and Ahlquist uncorrected data indicate that Pan is genetically closer to Homo than to Gorilla, but that Gorilla may be genetically closer to Pan than to Homo. Melting curves are presented for the pertinent experiments, plus one that includes representatives of most of the groups of living primates.
Chimpanzee genome paper:


Nature 437, 69-87 (1 September 2005) |
Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome
Nucleotide divergence

Best reciprocal nucleotide-level alignments of the chimpanzee and human genomes cover ~2.4 gigabases (Gb) of high-quality sequence, including 89 Mb from chromosome X and 7.5 Mb from chromosome Y.
Genome-wide rates. We calculate the genome-wide nucleotide divergence between human and chimpanzee to be 1.23%, confirming recent results from more limited studies12, 33, 34. The differences between one copy of the human genome and one copy of the chimpanzee genome include both the sites of fixed divergence between the species and some polymorphic sites within each species. By correcting for the estimated coalescence times in the human and chimpanzee populations (see Supplementary Information ‘Genome evolution’), we estimate that polymorphism accounts for 14–22% of the observed divergence rate and thus that the fixed divergence is ~1.06% or less.
And sundry other papers/sources using DNA sequence data:


10kTrees Website: Dataset

The 10k trees project (link above) used highly conserved sequences (e.g., ribosomal subunit genes, cytochrome b, etc.) from hundreds of primate species and constructed a massive phylogeny, showing human-chimp kinship to the exclusion of gorilla.



"A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates"
Hominoidea

Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo and Pan lineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of the Pan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7 [50].



Feel free to pick one of those and I will debate its merits with you.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

< shrugs > words and facts and ideas that are "Fake News", / "spin"/ made up, even by great (in the world's eyes) scienttists and researches and phds ,
are made up to confuse , obscure, and deceive others
usually for money,
though that by itself is not the only cause or reason....

 

[tas8831]

Ask God, he is the one that did it.

Absurd. You want to talk science until YOU are asked to provide some.

Not an honest broker.

Ever seen a child born that didnt receive half his genes from the father and half from the mother?

No - ever seen a person that was 'created' by a single parent giving up half his genes like you claimed happened?

Adam was created perfect.

Unsupported assertions to prop up other unsupported assertions.

How creationist of you.

 

[pitabread]

And yet bacteria subsume new genes from other dead bacteria. Yet remain the exact same E coli. But you didnt want to mention the part about bacteria getting genes from other dead bacteria in your post did you. Wouldnt have had quite the thrust to those that didnt know, would it have..... would have made your claims quite spurious and pointless, since the source of those new genes is well known.

That's rather beside the point. The fact that you're willing to claim that populations of organisms with as much as 80% genetic variability between them are the "exact same", yet for some reason claim that other populations with maybe a 0.1% difference between them are fundamentally different shows how arbitrary your entire argument is.

 

[pitabread]

I would think the differences between an Asian and an African would explain what variation is quite well.

It doesn't. I need you to specifically articulate what exactly that "variation" is.

That you keep avoiding explaining something so fundamental to your argument is telling.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

How creationist of you.

YES!
PERFECT !

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No evidence.... check. It would have been easier to just say so.

If you want to discuss DNA I suggest you address Tas, not me, he's much more knowledgeable on the subject.

He'll do nothing but try to avoid the fact that all that is ever observed is what already exists, as you are trying to do. I got evidence. The very fact that nothing has been observed to come into being except from what already existed. Sorry, I know you want to deny this in your own mind, yet I have asked repeatedly where your evidence is that new DNA can be made where it didn't exist before. Yet despite the observational evidence that life is created only from what previously existed, you still refuse to accept what is known to be fact for a belief that doesn't have any evidence supporting it. At least my belief has observational fact supporting it and all of what we know of DNA. Not once have you observed anything but life made from what already existed, yet despite all the data you refuse to accept what is in front of your eyes.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Ok...


E. coli with new abilities and such. What constitutes the generation of a new species?

What new abilities? E coli could already process citrus. Oh, you mean the fact that what already existed was made dominant, that you confuse as something new.

You seem to be claiming that all living things are static in their little slices of life - e. coli always e. coli, oak trees always oak trees, blue whales always blue whales - is this your position?

Ever seen e coli become something other than e coli? An oak tree become something other than an oak tree? A blue whale become something other than a blue whale?

It's not my position, its fact.

Are you aware that fossils are not the only line of evidence for evolution?

Yes, I m aware they have incorrectly classified an entire species of finches as separate species in order to support their false belief. Even if the DNA testing showed they had always been interbreeding. Speciation never occurred because they were never reproductively isolated. That Darwin believed incorrectly and incorrectly classified them is no excuse to continue the farce.

1
Actually, it is based, for me, on things like this list I came across elsewhere:

Anat Rec. 1977 Aug;188(4):477-87.
Sperm/egg interaction: the specificity of human spermatozoa.
Bedford JM.
Abstract
Human spermatozoa display unusually limited affinities in their interaction with oocytes of other species. They adhered to and, when capacitated, penetrated the vestments of the oocyte of an ape--the gibbon, Hylobates lar--both in vivo and in vitro. On the other hand, human spermatozoa would not even attach to the zona surface of sub-hominoid primate (baboon, rhesus monkey, squirrel monkey), nor to the non-primate eutherian oocytes tested. Among the apes the gibbon stands furthest from man. Thus, although the specificity of human spermatozoa is not confined to man alone, it probably is restricted to the Hominoidea. This study also suggests that the evolution of man and perhaps the other hominids has been accompanied by a restrictive change in the nature of the sperm surface which has limited and made more specific the complementary surface to which their spermatozoa may adhere. For the failure of human spermatozoa to attach to the zona surface of all non-hominoid oocytes stands in contrast to the behaviour of spermatozoa of the several other mammals studied which, in most combinations, adhered readily to foreign oocytes, including those of man. Taxonomically, the demonstration of a compatibility between the gametes of man and gibbon, not shared with cercopithecids, constitutes further evidence for inclusion of the Hylobatidae within the Hominoidea.
Amino acid sequence data also supported the close affinity of humans-chimps-gorillas in 1985 (and earlier) -

"PHYLOGENY OF PRIMATES AND OTHER EUTHERIAN ORDERS: A CLADISTIC ANALYSIS USING AMINO ACID AND NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCE DATA"
Abstract— Genealogical reconstructions carried out by the parsimony method on protein amino acid and DNA nucleotide sequence data are providing fresh evidence on cladistic branching patterns at taxonomic levels from the classes of Vertebrata and orders of Eutheria to the genera of Hominoidea. Minimum length trees constructed from amino acid sequence data group Mammalia with Archosauria (i.e., Aves plus Crocodilia), Amniota with Amphibia, and Tetrapoda with Teleostei. Within Mammalia, Edentata and Paenungulata (e.g., Proboscidea) appear as the most anciently separated from other eutherians. Another superordinal eutherian clade consists of Artiodactyla, Cetacea, and Perissodactyla. A third consistently contains Primates, Lagomorpha, and Tupaia. The cladistic positions of such orders as Carnivora, Chiroptera, Insectivora, and Rodentia are not well resolved by the currently still sparse body of sequence data. However, recent dramatic progress in the technology of gene cloning and nucleotide sequencing has opened the way for so enlarging the body of sequence data that it should become possible to solve almost any problem concerning the phylogenetic systematice of extant mammals. An example is provided by hominoid genera. Minimum length trees constructed from mitochondrial DNA nucleotide sequence data very strongly group Pan, Homo, and Gorilla into Homininae and then join Homininae and Ponginae (pongo) into Hominidae as the sister family of Hylobatidae (Hylobates). Resolution of the hominine trichotomy into two dichotomous branchings should be forthcoming as kilobase sequencing of nuclear genes progresses.
And of course DNA sequence data has been the icing on the cake - starting with analyses of the entire single-copy genome -

J Mol Evol. 1990 Mar;30(3):202-36.
DNA hybridization evidence of hominoid phylogeny: a reanalysis of the data.
Sibley CG1, Comstock JA, Ahlquist JE.

Abstract
Sibley and Ahlquist (1984, 1987) presented the results of a study of 514 DNA-DNA hybrids among the hominoids and Old World monkeys (Cercopithecidae). They concluded that the branching order of the living hominoid lineages, from oldest to most recent, was gibbons, orangutan, gorilla, chimpanzees, and human. Thus, a chimpanzee-human clade was indicated, rather than the chimpanzee-gorilla clade usually suggested from morphological evidence. The positions of the gibbon and orangutan branches in the phylogeny are supported by substantial evidence, but whether the chimpanzee lineage branched most recently from the human lineage or from the gorilla lineage remains controversial. The conclusions of Sibley and Ahlquist (1984, 1987) have been supported by several independent studies cited by Sibley and Ahlquist (1987), plus the DNA sequence data of Hayasaka et al. (1988), Miyamoto et al. (1988), Goodman et al. (1989, 1990), and the DNA-DNA hybridization data of Caccone and Powell (1989). The laboratory and data analysis methods have been criticized by Marks et al. (1988) and Sarich et al. (1989). In response to these critics, and for our own interests, we present a reanalysis of the Sibley and Ahlquist data, including a description of the corrections applied to the "raw counts." The validity of the laboratory methods is supported by the congruence of tree topology and delta values with those of Caccone and Powell (1989), although their tetraethylammonium chloride technique differs from the hydroxyapatite method in several respects. The utility of the T50H distance measure is indicated by its congruence with percent sequence divergence at least to delta T50H 30, as noted by Goodman et al. (1990). The Sibley and Ahlquist uncorrected data indicate that Pan is genetically closer to Homo than to Gorilla, but that Gorilla may be genetically closer to Pan than to Homo. Melting curves are presented for the pertinent experiments, plus one that includes representatives of most of the groups of living primates.
Chimpanzee genome paper:


Nature 437, 69-87 (1 September 2005) |
Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome
Nucleotide divergence

Best reciprocal nucleotide-level alignments of the chimpanzee and human genomes cover ~2.4 gigabases (Gb) of high-quality sequence, including 89 Mb from chromosome X and 7.5 Mb from chromosome Y.
Genome-wide rates. We calculate the genome-wide nucleotide divergence between human and chimpanzee to be 1.23%, confirming recent results from more limited studies12, 33, 34. The differences between one copy of the human genome and one copy of the chimpanzee genome include both the sites of fixed divergence between the species and some polymorphic sites within each species. By correcting for the estimated coalescence times in the human and chimpanzee populations (see Supplementary Information ‘Genome evolution’), we estimate that polymorphism accounts for 14–22% of the observed divergence rate and thus that the fixed divergence is ~1.06% or less.
And sundry other papers/sources using DNA sequence data:


10kTrees Website: Dataset

The 10k trees project (link above) used highly conserved sequences (e.g., ribosomal subunit genes, cytochrome b, etc.) from hundreds of primate species and constructed a massive phylogeny, showing human-chimp kinship to the exclusion of gorilla.



"A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates"
Hominoidea

Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo and Pan lineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of the Pan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7 [50].



Feel free to pick one of those and I will debate its merits with you.

Why dont we start with Darwin's finches? After all, we have direct DNA evidence they are the same species, yet they still insist on calling them separate species. How are you going to argue man and ape when you cant even get finches of the exact same species correct or refuse to correct your mistakes in classification?

Are you arguing that man and ape is the same species, just different subspecies?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Do you include adaptation in that?

This month and next month I will see adaptation myself.
so ?
Whent the weather turns colder, I wear warmer shirts and sometimes a jacket or a coat if I have one.

That is never called properly evolution by anyone.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Absurd. You want to talk science until YOU are asked to provide some.

Not an honest broker.

Tell us all then, what does the god science say how thew female chromosomes and male chromosomes got separated? Oh that's right, they have not a clue either, they just know that half the chromosomes come from the male and half come from the female, and then dance around to avoid the truth.

No - ever seen a person that was 'created' by a single parent giving up half his genes like you claimed happened?

Perhaps study genetics then, since half a child's chromosomes come from the mother and half from the father. I shouldnt have to be explaining this to people that claim to understand biology and believe in evolution.

Unsupported assertions to prop up other unsupported assertions.

How creationist of you.

And yet you have never once observed anything except what already existed copied to make new life. All the observational evidence supports my contention and is opposed to yours. My assertions are supported by the data. Only what already exists is copied into a new life. No new DNA has ever been observed to happen. Believe what you will against all the observational data. People of faith in the religion of evolution never needed proof anyways to believe against the data. I believe because of the data.