- Jun 4, 2013
- 10,132
- 996
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Others
Ok, so in the same train of thought, genetic similarities don't automatically make two different populations related. It's your reasoning.-_- dude, you and I have different genes from each other, even excluding the X and Y chromosomes from consideration, and we are the same species. Genetic differences in and of themselves don't automatically make two different populations completely unrelated.
And btw, our genes are exactly the same, its simply the arrangement of those genetic markers that make someone different. My T, A, G and C is the same as your T, A, G and C, they are simply in a different arrangement.....
Your argument has no substance and misleads people....
Not in your intellectually secluded world where you ignore that geneticists use viruses to target specific genes for gene therapy. Hmm, if they were randomly attacking cells and their genetic content, why that just wouldn't work, now would it??????Vertical transfer of infection doesn't result in genes ending up in analogous locations. Try again.
There is no common ancestor at all, let alone the "last" one. That's why they are every last one missing for every single evolutionary tree. And I do mean EVERY SINGLE TREE.I wasn't claiming orangutans as our closest living relative or ancestor. Did you ignore the fact that my initial post that you responded to was about why modern, non-human apes aren't on an evolutionary path towards becoming humans?
The orangutan comment was based on the ambiguous "they" in your post which I thought referred to ape ancestors in general, not necessarily the last common ancestor between humans and other great apes.
Read the Grants papers, then come back and tell me that again....Name the species in the same niche as each other. They aren't simply in the same niche by virtue of being finches, the finches on the islands have variable diets and distribution.
in other words you look for any excuse to justify in your own mind why you can ignore the outcome of almost 40 years of actual plant and animal husbandry, because the results don't fit your viewpoint. I understand....Yes, I noticed Dawkins was even there, with a strangely placed quote from him in the paper, which while interesting (and not supporting the paper's conclusion), was entirely irrelevant to the problems I outlined. It doesn't matter that he cited some legitimate people, the entire thing is still a garbage pile. Plus, really? Should I really take the time to Google search every name in the cited works of this poor excuse for a paper? It's not as if I based my conclusion that it was garbage on the citations, I saw what garbage it was and got curious to see what sorts of citations it had.
And I notice you are ignoring the inherent flaws I outlined, such as the fact that barley was sequenced 7 years after this paper was published in an Indian journal of ill repute. You seem to just want to focus on credentials. Which is silly. Some of the citations are super old too, like Vavilov's being from 1922. We didn't even know the structure of DNA until about 30 years later. And these aren't just citations for the introduction, no, he is actually using this crap to try to promote his conclusion further. It's a ridiculous piece of work, so sorry you don't want to admit that.
Laughable coming from someone that seemed focused on the authors credentials......
And have to spend all that money all over again re-educating yourself in another field? Loose the respect of your peers, etc? Not a chance and we both know it. Just like with Ptolomy, it took a revolution to change the current system of belief.-_- you are assuming people couldn't make money off of disproving a theory. I'd be a rockstar if I disproved a theory as big as evolution. Plus, ever heard of moving on to other work?
It's you that seems to want to ignore the outcome of over 40 years of actual mutation experiment with plants and animals because you don't like the conclusion brought together fro disparage sources.Pfft, glad to know that you don't think the intentions behind a referenced experiment matter. I think it makes a huge difference that the Lundqvist reference is a historical book and that the data taken from it was from experiments designed to force mutations that would result in specific traits.
So says those that keep ignoring over 100 breeds of dogs from one wolf stock......That doesn't give new traits if the ones in question have traditional dominance/recessive patterns. It would produce an individual with both traits, ideally. You don't really get anything new by crossbreeding unless the cross results in atypical chromosome number.
Even the Grants found that not to be true studying actual breeding in the real world.....
"New additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization is estimated to be two to three orders of magnitude greater than that introduced by mutation."
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1994.tb01313.x
Your statements are not supported by actual breeding observations.....
I like how you chose to ignore every one of those linked too... which discussed the subject. You had your pick...... Yet chose to ignore them all because it leads to facts you don't want to hear because they'll damage your belief system....I like how you don't actually link any in particular. It's so much more helpful than linking actual papers (sarcasm).
Last edited:
Upvote
0