Help with a genetics claim...

[pitabread]

But since I am using known laws of physics, the only part that can't be fit is the part that makes the same protons, neutron and electrons that make up dust alive. But then that's why you need a creator. It's the same hurdle you can't get around.

I'm going to "bump" this because you still never explained how alleles are created. So far you've mentioned the laws of physics and the need for a creator.

But you still haven't put those together and explained how it would have happened...

 

[tas8831]

I already have, you simply refuse to accept science....

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28568290

"We may add one more difference between a mutated allele and one [allele] introduced by hybridization. The mutated allele has been altered randomly, whereas the one [allele] introduced by hybridization has been shaped by natural selection, albeit in a differentiated genome (deleterious mutations have been purged and any beneficial mutations gone to fixation by selection)."

"New additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization is estimated to be two to three orders of magnitude greater than that introduced by mutation."

If you didn't ignore the data, you would have your answer......

Incredible..

He refutes his own dopey claims, and is too creationisty to see it...

"We may add one more difference between a mutated allele and one [allele] introduced by hybridization. The mutated allele has been altered..."

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Incredible..

He refutes his own dopey claims, and is too creationisty to see it...

"We may add one more difference between a mutated allele and one [allele] introduced by hybridization. The mutated allele has been altered..."

But the mutated allele is not the allele introduced by hybridization.....

"The mutated allele has been altered randomly, whereas the one [allele] introduced by hybridization has been shaped by natural selection...."

Get over it Tas. They are discussing two different alleles, One introduced randomly by mutation and one introduced from the effects of genetic hybridization from mating......

You are simply refusing to admit they are discussing two different ways alleles can be introduced. And as they told you.....

The one introduced by hybridization is two to three orders of magnitude greater at producing new genetic variance than that produced by mutation. Which destroys your belief that both are by mutation.... They are contrasting an allele formed by the combining of genomes from mating - a product of natural selection - with an allele formed by random mutation. And the allele formed naturally by combining the genome was two to three orders of magnitude greater at producing new genetic variance, because as they informed you, it affected several loci at once as the genome is recombined, unlike a mutation which only affects a single loci....

Give up your absurd beliefs Tas, they confine you to little boxes......

 

[Brightmoon]

It’s not tas who has the weird idea here! Justa you don’t understand the terminology!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It’s not tas who has the weird idea here! Justa you don’t understand the terminology!

That's your excuse for ignoring the data, but yet you can't present anything scientific to back up your claim.....

I'm not the one trying to interpret it as "a mutation is two to three orders of magnitude greater at producing new genetic variation than mutations........"

Well gee, your interpretation just makes no sense at all, does it.....

We agree, someone isn't very aware...... but sadly for you it is not me.....

 

[Brightmoon]

You’re telling a working geneticist that he doesn’t understand genetics. I’ve got a biology degree and you’re telling me I don’t understand basic biology. Yeah, right!

Pot calling the aluminum kettle black! It ain’t working Justa and it’s getting boring really quick

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You’re telling a working geneticist that he doesn’t understand genetics. I’ve got a biology degree and you’re telling me I don’t understand basic biology. Yeah, right!

Pot calling the aluminum kettle black! It ain’t working Justa and it’s getting boring really quick

That's exactly what I am telling you, and I notice you still don't have any scientific data to back your claim.....

Oh I am sure you do understand, but telling it like it is is against the rules, so instead we will just call it propaganda.....

I seriously doubt your biology degree except from a cracker jack box if you don't understand the difference between a random mutation producing a allele and an allele produced by the re-combination of divergent genomes....

Again, I am not the one trying to convince the readers that the correct interpretation is: "a mutation is two to three orders of magnitude greater at producing new genetic variation than mutations........"

So I don't see that fancy cracker jack box degree doing you any good at actual thinking, just regurgitating propaganda.... That and trying to fool people into believing a piece of paper matters... It matters all right, means you were a good slave in following what you were told to think.....

 

[Brightmoon]

Lol, you’re determined to believe that creationist pseudoscience aren’t you. you’re the living example as to WHY creation scientists change the terminology. So that you can’t understand that you’ve been scammed out of a science education.

I actually do understand the difference between getting an already formed allele from another organism and having one form by random mutation. It depends on the genes the new organism already has and the new organism’s environment whether or not either allele is beneficial for the new organism. You seem to think there is some other magic woo involved

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Biology degree = read the propaganda. Answer the question with the propaganda one just memorized, no thought required......

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Lol, you’re determined to believe that creationist pseudoscience aren’t you. you’re the living example as to WHY creation scientists change the terminology. So that you can’t understand that you’ve been scammed out of a science education.

Says the person that still hasn't presented any scientific evidence, but just keeps making bald faced claims of incorrectness.......

let me repeat..... Again, I am not the one trying to convince the readers that the correct interpretation is: "a mutation is two to three orders of magnitude greater at producing new genetic variation than mutations........"

Go ahead, defend your stance instead of just making insinuating remarks. What, can't can you.....

 

[Brightmoon]

You’re correct I can’t defend against brick wall thick ignorance

 

[Brightmoon]

I actually do understand the difference between getting an already formed allele from another organism and having one form by random mutation. It depends on the genes the new organism already has and the new organism’s environment whether or not either allele is beneficial for the new organism. You seem to think there is some other magic woo involved.

Now you’ve been told this twice by me and innumerable times by tas and others

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I actually do understand the difference between getting an already formed allele from another organism and having one form by random mutation. It depends on the genes the new organism already has and the new organism’s environment whether or not either allele is beneficial for the new organism. You seem to think there is some other magic woo involved.

Now you’ve been told this twice by me and innumerable times by tas and others

Oh, no, I don't think there is any magic involved, just simple mating.... which is two to three orders of magnitude greater at producing new genetic variance than mutations......

Lol, who are you trying to fool with your switcharooo double-talk? Yourself?

Tas was begging for help because he didn't want to accept the fact that an allele from the re-combination of genomes from divergent individuals could be of greater import than his precious mutations. And is why both he and you spent pages trying to convince everyone it was mutations they were talking about, except when presented in language any common sense reader could understand you now want to change course and act like you were on the bandwagon all along. No one is fooled by your double-talk.... especially not me... Don't even think your going to try to switch your misunderstanding back to me, I don't play that game and certainly won't let you play it....

 

[lesliedellow]

Suffice it to say that I have archived this thread for a great example of how creationists argue - via abject, profound ignorance bolstered by sadly rampant Dunning-Kruger effect.

Justatruthseeker only ever has one textbook when it comes to any, even elementary, scientific subject, and that is Wikipedia.

 

[Brightmoon]

Wikipedia isn’t that bad when it comes to science info. He probably gets his info from creationist websites which are THAT BAD!

 

[tas8831]

I seriously doubt your biology degree except from a cracker jack box if you don't understand the difference between a random mutation producing a allele and an allele produced by the re-combination of divergent genomes....

Please provide the mechanism by which an allele is created in this fashion, with examples.


And let us all recall:

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...ved-in-the-wild.8037761/page-30#post-73117822

Please indulge me, oh Genetics master, and expand upon a conundrum I find myself in. I, gosh, just cannot comprehend this - from your Wiki link:

"For example, a single-base mutation in the APOE (apolipoprotein E) gene is associated with a lower risk for Alzheimer's disease."

Why did your SNP wiki page mention this - that an SNP in a gene does something when you have declared that alleles are really just one letter difference that was already there?

When I clicked on the 'gene' link on your SNP wiki page, I strangely saw the following:

"Genes can acquire mutations in their sequence, leading to different variants, known as alleles, in the population"

and - oh my stars - the wiki page on "gene" has a WHOLE SECTION dedicated to mutation! And - gulp! - it discusses them in reference to the creation of NEW ALLELES! I mean, ALLIES!

Genes can acquire mutations in their sequence, leading to different variants, known as alleles, in the population.

And - oh my, the vapors are a-comin' - the Google takes me to a site that makes this outrageous claim:


How are new alleles created?
Occasionally, DNA mutations occur in germ cells – cells destined to become eggs or sperm. In this case, the DNA mutation is copied into every new cell of the growing embryo following fertilisation. In this way, new DNA variants are passed on to the next generation. If the mutation affects a gene, it will result in a new version of that gene – a new allele.

Please correct these lies! Tell the TRUTH that alleles are just a different letter that was already there!

Then please tell the Grants what an allele REALLY is! Won't you? Because the Grants and their wicked co-conspirators say this about alleles:

"...the [allele] introduced by hybridization has been shaped by natural selection, albeit in a differentiated genome (deleterious mutations have been purged and any beneficial mutations gone to fixation by selection)."

And to think about this great offense - it is found in the very link you use to claim the opposite! They must be part of the conspiracy to hide the truth!
Take a break, and read up on what you clearly fail to understand in the meantime.
Yes sir, thank you sir. I will definitely take the time to understand the writings of scientists and genetics people to mean the opposite of what they actually do such that my new lernin' will conform to your great creationist intellect's desires...


*except when mutations mutate all the old genes of the 'perfect' genome into junkDNA - which other creationists claim does not even exist. I love it when YECs argue against each other without even realizing it!

 

[tas8831]

Justatruthseeker only ever has one textbook when it comes to any, even elementary, scientific subject, and that is Wikipedia.

That is being too generous. He has Google, into which he plugs keywords. And when he gets returns, without understanding them, he believes he has received proof that he is right.

This is why he thinks a paper that explains that 'new' alleles introduced during hybridization are the product of mutation and selection actually claims that new alleles are produced by mating.

 

[lesliedellow]

Wikipedia isn’t that bad when it comes to science info. He probably gets his info from creationist websites which are THAT BAD!

Wikipedia may not be that bad, but Justatruthseeker can badly misinterpret whatever he reads. For example:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment

According to him, that proves that the gravitational and electromagnetic forces are really the same thing. He is an Electric Universe theorist, of course.

He will insist that he knows the difference between charge and energy, and only a few sentences later make it perfectly obvious that he doesn’t.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

let me repeat..... Again, I am not the one trying to convince the readers that the correct interpretation is: "a mutation is two to three orders of magnitude greater at producing new genetic variation than mutations........"

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Wikipedia may not be that bad, but Justatruthseeker can badly misinterpret whatever he reads. For example:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment

According to him, that proves that the gravitational and electromagnetic forces are really the same thing. He is an Electric Universe theorist, of course.

He will insist that he knows the difference between charge and energy, and only a few sentences later make it perfectly obvious that he doesn’t.

Says the person who ignores that 99.9% of the universe is plasma, and then has to invent 95% unknown ad-hoc Fairie Dust because he can't get the numbers to work out correctly because he just ignored 99.9% of it. Lol, you guys are a hoot.....

You can't even get a theory 99.8% correct inside the solar system without adding anything to work outside it without adding a 95% fudge factor. Yes you people are just hilarious in your inability to get anything correct without 95% fudges....

I sure wouldn't be proclaiming how proud I was that my cosmological beliefs required 95% of unknown, undetected stuff if I was you.... So basically you are ignorant of 95% of the universe. I wonder why since you ignore 99.9% of it....

Maybe you should find out what the Lorentz transforms are some day....