proving evolution as just a "theory"

[pitabread]

Neither... To the evolution deniers

Arbitrarily dismissing something is effectively tantamount to ignoring it. Especially when you then later claim there are no examples of beneficial mutations, after you've been given examples of beneficial mutations.

All it really speaks to is blatant denial.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Hey, you're back! Just a quick reminder.....

Post

Post

“The data group people according to their similarities at 650,000 DNA locations. At each location, a person has one of the four DNA letters: an A, T, C or G. All those who have a G at a specific location would be grouped together, and so on.”

So let’s look at this new even more arbitrary classification system. According to you random mutations occurr at every birth. So that a population might have a specific letter, say G at a specific location, would be, well, random.

On the other hand we know how genes are actually passed down, so that one expects the letter G to be at specific locations. Falsifying mutation theory at its very core.

But perhaps you should have phsycosarah read that, since she keeps insisting skin color is the difference between Asian and African, despite my constant efforts to correct her.

“The data confirm earlier work that the vast majority of genetic variation occurs within populations rather than between populations, suggesting that, genetically speaking, race is only skin deep. "Most of the DNA variation we see has nothing to do with what the people who use the term 'race' usually mean," said Marcus Feldman, PhD, professor of biological sciences.”

Just as I tried to explain to her that even if mutated so an African was purple, we could still differentiate them as African.

 

[pitabread]

According to you random mutations occurr at every birth.

FYI:

Here we present the first direct comparative analysis of male and female germline mutation rates from complete genome sequences of two parent-offspring trios. Through extensive validation, we identified 49 and 35 germline de novo mutations (DNMs) in two trio offspring, as well as 1,586 non-germline DNMs arising either somatically or in the cell-lines from which DNA was derived. Most strikingly, in one family we observed that 92% of germline DNMs were from the paternal germline, while, in complete contrast, in the other family 64% of DNMs were from the maternal germline. These observations reveal considerable variation in mutation rates within and between families.

Variation in genome-wide mutation rates within and between human families

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Odd that, in the same paragraph, you refer to Asians and Animals, yet later write that referring to "allies" that alter skin color is 'quite racist.'

Recall that you were the first to even use the term "race" in this laughably inept cavalcade of whimsy in which hybridization can make an Asian and an African out of a Middle eastern...

By the way - show us all how a middle eastern becomes an Asian by mating with another middle eastern.

Because you didn’t pay attention. As explained to Sarah, skin color has nothing to do with it. Africans weren’t called Africans because they had black skin, but because the occupied the continent of Africa.

But you all consistently attempt to turn it into an issue of skin color. As Sarah did, even though I had to point out to get that even if a mutation made an African skin turn purple, we could identify them genetically as African.

And here you are, still trying to make it an issue of skin color....

How could I show you that? A middle eastern mating with a middle eastern would produce only a middle eastern. Have t you been paying attention? Asian mates with Asian and produces only Asian. African mates with African and produces only African. Middle eastern mates with middle eastern and produces only middle eastern. Only when the middle eastern mates with another non middle eastern, does a new race come into being.

But there you go again, ignoring that perfect genome from the beginning that through mutational error now has 90+% non functional DNA..... half of which was used to create the female....

Yes, because Africans and Asians are real things. Nobody has said different.

And missing common ancestors are things of fantasyland, nobody has said different.

We have been trying to get you to provide evidence that 2 middle easterners with identical genomes can produce offspring that become Africans and Asians solely by mating with/among their own middle eastern offspring, and you are 100% incapable of even understanding the question, it seems, much less explaining the genetics behind that impossibility.

Because 1) you start with the flawed assumption that it was not perfect, despite over the years becoming 90+% non functional because of errors.

And 2) assume that Adam and Eve were both of the same type.

And 3) continue to ignore tha over 100 breeds of dog species came from one wolf genome.....

Then reject the idea that a mere 12 to 15 races can come from one human genome....

A contradiction of the highest order....

But not other traits? Why not? why the arbitrary and unfounded demarcation?

Nothing unfounded or arbitrary about it. Simply breeding for selected traits, the same way we got a chiwawah from a wolf.

Then what are the "phonetic" traits that distinguishes an Asian from a middle eastern created man?


Do tell! And try not to be racist!

Your the only one being raciest since I have repeated many times it’s not the color of the skin that allows us to distinguish genetically between Asian, African or middle eastern...

We narrow down suspects by DNA testing without knowing the color of their skin.

Typical evolutionist, trying to turn a subject that has nothing to do with race into one of race, because they are on the loosing side of the debate.

Sure - you can look for genetic markers that tend to cluster within certain populations, haplotypes.

What do you think such things do?

Why do specific haplotypes tend to be found in certain populations?

Could it be that there is a relationship between these 'genetic strains' and "phonetic" traits?

shocking!

Sure their is a relationship because the all descended from the eight aboard the Ark, which inherited those traits from Adam and Eve.

Unlike claims of mutation randomly occurring in one individual, then magically fixing itself in the rest of the population without direct descent from that person.

I expect that relationship.

 

[pitabread]

But there you go again, ignoring that perfect genome from the beginning

What "perfect genome"? You mean the magical fantasy genome that apparently contained every single possible allele found in current human populations and for which you have absolutely zero evidence for? That perfect genome?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I note you provide no citation or link or even a quote.


And still waiting for you to EXPLAIN and provide EVIDENCE that:

middle eastern + middle eastern = African and Asian and Inuit and Nordic and.....

First let’s clear up your misconception. Hybridization is an evolutionary term.

Try selectively breeding for specific traits.

Wolf + wolf + selectively breeding for a trait + that trait + wolf + again selecting for a trait + that trait + wolf led to every dog breed you see today.

The evidence is right there before your eyes. Stop ignoring it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What "perfect genome"? You mean the magical fantasy genome that apparently contained every single possible allele found in current human populations and for which you have absolutely zero evidence for? That perfect genome?

No the perfect genome that is now 90+% non functional because of errors. You don’t believe it actually started out as 90+% non functional and then became 90+% non functional because of errors do you? Now that would be magic.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Arbitrarily dismissing something is effectively tantamount to ignoring it.

All it really speaks to is blatant denial.

What "perfect genome"? You mean the magical fantasy genome that apparently contained every single possible allele found in current human populations and for which you have absolutely zero evidence for? That perfect genome?

To quote you above, arbitrarily dismissing something..... even when you understand the genome is now 90+% non functional because of accumulated errors....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I must apologize for a mistake. I claimed no common ancestors could be found, but grey wolves do exist, they just haven’t split into seperate species by mutation, but become different subspecies by selecting traits. But then that’s why it isn’t missing, because we know it has nothing to do with evolution.

 

[pitabread]

No the perfect genome that is now 90+% non functional because of errors.

Based on what evidence? Be specific, now.

Remember, you've claimed in the past that all allelic variation in the human population was part of those original genomes, so you need to back this up with genetic analysis to support this.

You don’t believe it actually started out as 90+% non functional and then became 90+% non functional because of errors do you? Now that would be magic.

I think "functional" versus "non-functional" is a bit nebulous, since in practice it's a bit more complicated than that. Different portions of the genome can have different relative functions from protein-coding sequences to regulatory sequences to various types of other repetitive sequences (including regions that make up telomeres, centromeres, etc).

On top of that genome size can vary dramatically, with other organisms have genomes many times the size of our own. So I'm not sure if relative functionality of a specific genome is necessarily a good measure of anything.

 

[pitabread]

To quote you above, arbitrarily dismissing something..... even when you understand the genome is now 90+% non functional because of accumulated errors....

I tend to dismiss things when there is no evidence for it. So far you haven't provided a shred of evidence for your claimed "magic genomes".

And especially like some of your previous claims where you merely respond by trying to turn the argument around with mock incredulity and questions.

So yes, I will continue to dismiss your claim until you provide real-world evidence for it. In this case, you need some sort of real genetic/genomic analysis to back up your claim. Do you have anything?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Based on what evidence? Be specific, now.

Hey it’s evolutionary claims that said 98% of the genome was non functional because of accumulated errors. If you wish to lower that to 80% that’s fine with me.

Remember, you've claimed in the past that all allelic variation in the human population was part of those original genomes, so you need to back this up with genetic analysis to support this.

It is. All mutations only copy what already exists. Replication errors. So that sequence was already existing in the genome and it’s possibility already existed.

I think "functional" versus "non-functional" is a bit nebulous, since in practice it's a bit more complicated than that. Different portions of the genome can have different relative functions from protein-coding sequences to regulatory sequences to various types of other repetitive sequences (including regions that make up telomeres, centromeres, etc).

On top of that genome size can vary dramatically, with other organisms have genomes many times the size of our own. So I'm not sure if relative functionality of a specific genome is necessarily a good measure of anything.

It seemed to be good enough for 40 years when evolutionists used it to support their claims.

So what? We are talking the human genome and the production of 12 to 15 races not the size of other organisms genomes.

Canine genomes are about the same size as human genomes. We got over 100 breeds of them from wolves from selective breeding, yet you find it difficult to accept 12 to 15 races of humans developed from selective breeding from one stock.

The contradiction is plain and quite evident.

Are you claiming the wolf gene is not more variable than a poodles, which was selectively bred? Are you not aware that the more pure bred an animal is, the more genetic errors it has along with health problems?


Stop ignoring the power of selective breeding in creating variation, since it is what every single animal on this planet does.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I tend to dismiss things when there is no evidence for it. So far you haven't provided a shred of evidence for your claimed "magic genomes".

And especially like some of your previous claims where you merely respond by trying to turn the argument around with mock incredulity and questions.

So yes, I will continue to dismiss your claim until you provide real-world evidence for it. In this case, you need some sort of real genetic/genomic analysis to back up your claim. Do you have anything?

I got over 100 breeds of dogs coming from one wolf stock.

You got claims variation is from mutation over millions of years.

Yet through selective breeding alone, we have over 100 breeds of dogs.

But then nobody wanted to discuss the Russian silver fox domestication experiment either. In which selection for tamability caused physical changes as well, leading to traits we see in dogs. And as the researchers noted, had no bearing on mutations.

So despite selectively breeding for traits to make over 100 breeds of dogs, and several silver fox breeds, you continue to refuse to apply this to humans. Even when humans and every animal alive participates in selective breeding.

The more you breed for specific traits, the less variability you have.

Do you believe you can get a wolf from a poodle? But we know we can get a poodle from a wolf....

 

[pitabread]

Hey it’s evolutionary claims that said 98% of the genome was non functional because of accumulated errors. If you wish to lower that to 80% that’s fine with me.

How much I personally think the genome is "non-functional" is honestly irrelevant. I'm asking you to support your claims. Preferably with some sort of real analysis based on underyling genetics, which you still seem unable to provide.

It is. All mutations only copy what already exists. Replication errors. So that sequence was already existing in the genome and it’s possibility already existed.

This is just a word salad and that last sentence doesn't even make any sense.

Please try again, and try to communicate better.

It seemed to be good enough for 40 years when evolutionists used it to support their claims.

So what? We are talking the human genome and the production of 12 to 15 races not the size of other organisms genomes.

Canine genomes are about the same size as human genomes. We got over 100 breeds of them from wolves from selective breeding, yet you find it difficult to accept 12 to 15 races of humans developed from selective breeding from one stock.

The contradiction is plain and quite evident.

I'm asking you to provide actual evidence that all allelic human variation was derived from two original genomes. You're just waffling.

Are you claiming the wolf gene is not more variable than a poodles, which was selectively bred? Are you not aware that the more pure bred an animal is, the more genetic errors it has along with health problems?

Not to mention once again trying to answer questions with questions.

I'm asking you for actual evidence to support your claims of this supposed "perfect genome" that originated all the variation with observe in the human population today.

It's clear you're out of your depth with this but just too proud to admit it.

 

[pitabread]

You got claims variation is from mutation over millions of years.

Yet through selective breeding alone, we have over 100 breeds of dogs.

So how about you explain how you think the underlying genetics of breeding dogs works. Did the original wolves also have magic genomes?

But then nobody wanted to discuss the Russian silver fox domestication experiment either. In which selection for tamability caused physical changes as well, leading to traits we see in dogs. And as the researchers noted, had no bearing on mutations.

[citation needed]

The more you breed for specific traits, the less variability you have.

And why would variability be reduced? What are the underlying mechanisms that reduce genetic variation in a population?

 

[Jimmy D]

I must apologize for a mistake. I claimed no common ancestors could be found, but grey wolves do exist, they just haven’t split into seperate species by mutation, but become different subspecies by selecting traits. But then that’s why it isn’t missing, because we know it has nothing to do with evolution.
View attachment 212977

How many times do you need to be presented with the "small dog" mutation that occured after the split from wolves before you stop lying.

Repeating your nonsense ad nauseum doesn't make it true.

 

[Jimmy D]

“The data group people according to their similarities at 650,000 DNA locations. At each location, a person has one of the four DNA letters: an A, T, C or G. All those who have a G at a specific location would be grouped together, and so on.”

So let’s look at this new even more arbitrary classification system. According to you random mutations occurr at every birth. So that a population might have a specific letter, say G at a specific location, would be, well, random.

On the other hand we know how genes are actually passed down, so that one expects the letter G to be at specific locations. Falsifying mutation theory at its very core.

But perhaps you should have phsycosarah read that, since she keeps insisting skin color is the difference between Asian and African, despite my constant efforts to correct her.

“The data confirm earlier work that the vast majority of genetic variation occurs within populations rather than between populations, suggesting that, genetically speaking, race is only skin deep. "Most of the DNA variation we see has nothing to do with what the people who use the term 'race' usually mean," said Marcus Feldman, PhD, professor of biological sciences.”

Just as I tried to explain to her that even if mutated so an African was purple, we could still differentiate them as African.

I'm sure I asked how the phylogentetic trees in that paper provided evidence for your claims about the diversity we see distributed in the human population.

 

[Jimmy D]

On the other hand we know how genes are actually passed down, so that one expects the letter G to be at specific locations. Falsifying mutation theory at its very core.

Can you expand on this? What mutation theory are you referring to and how is it falsified?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

How much I personally think the genome is "non-functional" is honestly irrelevant. I'm asking you to support your claims. Preferably with some sort of real analysis based on underyling genetics, which you still seem unable to provide.

Fine, we will is the human genome project in which case only about 20% is non functional, will that suffice for you?

Or will you now argue against their findings and argue even more is non functional?

This is just a word salad and that last sentence doesn't even make any sense.

Please try again, and try to communicate better.

What did you find difficult to understand in replication errors?

If a mutation is able to copy a gene incorrectly and transpose it into a different format, then that format already existed as a possibility to begin with. You understood just fine, don’t play stupid and I won’t treat you as stupid. You just don’t want to consider that in order to be COPIED into a different order, that possibility already existed in the genome.

I'm asking you to provide actual evidence that all allelic human variation was derived from two original genomes. You're just waffling.

You have evidenced, you just refuse to look. You just think chimps and humans came from the same common ancestor. That’s your confusion. Yet accept all dogs come from one common ancestor, yet refuse to apply the same to humans.

Not to mention once again trying to answer questions with questions.

I'm asking you for actual evidence to support your claims of this supposed "perfect genome" that originated all the variation with observe in the human population today.

It's clear you're out of your depth with this but just too proud to admit it.

Oh, so only you are able to ask questions?

I’ll ask again, do you believe we can get a wolf from a poodle?

I’m asking you to provide my evidence for me, which will be in your own answers, and you know this and so avoid answering....

 

[pitabread]

Fine, we will is the human genome project in which case only about 20% is non functional, will that suffice for you?

Or will you now argue against their findings and argue even more is non functional?

I'm not arguing their findings at all. I'm saying how much of genome I think is functional or non-functional is irrelevant here.

I'm asking you to support your argument, but you're not doing so.

What did you find difficult to understand in replication errors?

If a mutation is able to copy a gene incorrectly and transpose it into a different format, then that format already existed as a possibility to begin with. You understood just fine, don’t play stupid and I won’t treat you as stupid. You just don’t want to consider that in order to be COPIED into a different order, that possibility already existed in the genome.

I know quite well how mutations work. I just don't understand whatever point you are trying to make. DNA replication is by definition replication of existing error. Mutations are errors in that replication process. It's a source of genetic variation in populations.

So your point is... ?

You have evidenced, you just refuse to look. You just think chimps and humans came from the same common ancestor. That’s your confusion. Yet accept all dogs come from one common ancestor, yet refuse to apply the same to humans.

I'm asking you to provide genetic evidence for your so-called original "perfect genomes" and all you do is waffle.

Can you provide evidence or not? (Thus far, all you've done is the latter.)

Oh, so only you are able to ask questions?

When a person asks a question about someone's position and the answer is another question, it shows that the person is question doesn't have a strong position. It's a form of deflection. If you want to keep deflecting that's fine, but all it does is demonstrate you have nothing to support your assertions.

I’m asking you to provide my evidence for me, which will be in your own answers, and you know this and so avoid answering....

That's not how it works kiddo. You make a claim, you back it up.

To re-iterate, you said, "But there you go again, ignoring that perfect genome from the beginning".

Now, can you support your contention that this "perfect genome" existed? Because so far you clearly cannot.