Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
i think you refer to genes which contradict the phylogenetic tree. indeed we have many of them but evolutionists "solve" this problem by claiming for different selection pressure or convergent evolution. for instance: the gene prestin is closer between dolphins and some bats than between dolphins and baleen whales. it make no sense under evolution theory, so scientists solve this by convergent evolution. but this is just an ad hoc explanation rather than a scientific one.
(image from https://www.researchgate.net/figure...olocating-bats-and-cetaceans-A_fig3_237098425)
We can deal with this unrelated subject after you address your previous incorrect assertions: there is no genetic evidence for evolution, and GULO is a problem for evolution because bats, guinea pigs and primates all have the same gene. Please show some intellectual integrity and support your assertions.
We can deal with this change of topic after we deal with the three articles, which we can deal with after we deal with your confused statement about GULO, which we can deal with after we deal with my genetic evidence for evolution.
Indeed. It does show the author doesn't know much about the subject, but the piece as a whole was not terrible. The last paragraph is ambiguous, but otherwise it was mostly well written.
Thanks. And yes, it's 2% from the survey. (Which is of all kinds of scientists, not just geneticists, and only from American scientists, both of which will heavily skew the results toward more rejection of evolution.)
Correct.
We don't know (although we can usually tell). All we have to know is what the differences between the two genomes should look like if they are the result of mutations, and compare that expectation with observation. Previously, you agreed that the comparison did show that accumulated mutations were responsible. Have you changed your mind?
But what if the problem is that in his original hypothesis it was a bottom up theory in that you had a tree that branched out from bottom up. Then what happens if we discover its top down in that we get the Phylum going down in the taxonomic structure in respect to the time of discovery. Whether we are looking at the phylogenetic inspection of genetics, anatomical or fossilized we have this same problem as well as many other problems. I like to call it Horizontal Cross Spontaneous Creations.
So there is that
It wouldn't really matter what it looks like - what would matter is how different they are to each other. If you wanted to know what it probably looked like, you'd have to involve more species and their copies of that gene, such as this hypothetical:
We know that different kinds of mutations happen more often than others. For example, an A base changes to a G (and vice versa) more often than it changes to a C. Therefore, if genetic differences between species are the result of mutation, we should expect to find more cases where one species has an A and the other a G than cases where one has an A and the other a C. We don't have to know whether the A was the ancestral state or the G; all we have to do is count the differences. Similarly for other combinations, and other specific mutations -- we can build up an expected pattern of differences that is the signature of mutation. When we compare the actual DNA of humans and chimpanzees, lo and behold, what we find looks exactly like the pattern we expect from mutation.
"Macroevolution" is used in scientific literature, although not very frequently. In evolutionary theory, the term usually means any evolution above the level of the species. There are debates about the extent to which different processes operate in microevolution and macroevolution. For example, if some lineages speciate more readily, what effect does that have on their evolutionary trajectories? I've also seen the word used more loosely in paleontology to describe long-term evolutionary trends.
Some biologists would disagree with you, e.g. Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution.
ok. one possible explanation (out of two that i can think of) is that those bases have a similar functional meaning, therefore its possible that the designer desinged those bases to change into more similar bases than to other kinds of bases. in such a way a new mutation has more chance to make no harm to the gene (unlike the other kinds of mutations). so if we see A in human and G in chimp it may be the result of design feature rather than mutation.
