They are incredibly lacking, as shown by your repeatedly not understanding what introgression is....
The projection in thunderous...
You seem to think that introgression "creates" new alleles. Yet this is clearly not the case, even in the quotes you provide.
Introgression, as the word should imply, is the introduction of new alleles from one individual/population into another (gene flow). Here, let me
school you again:
"Introgression (or “introgressive hybridization”) describes the incorporation (usually via hybridization and backcrossing) of alleles from one entity (species) into the gene pool of a second, divergent entity (species) (Anderson and Hubricht 1938; Anderson 1949). Introgression is a relative term; alleles at one locus introgress with respect to alleles at other loci. That is, for the above definition to be applicable, some portion of the gene pool of each of the hybridizing taxa must remain constant and uncontaminated such that we can actually recognize that 2 distinct gene pools exist."
Nothing about "new" alelles being created via hybridization. Get it yet?
I don't care where they [mutations] ocurr.
Of course you don't; you don't know any better. In fact, you do not seem to know much about basic cell or molecular biology. If you did, you would be able to better express your ideas. As it stands, your characterization of all of this is rather comical in its childishness ("It [mutation] simply rewrites in a new order what already exists as a possibility within the genome."
).
A copying error is only taking what already exists and writing it in a way it was not before. Hence the word copy.... But one that already existed as a possibility, because copying only uses what already exists....
I suppose I should not expect anything more sophisticated, the level of your understanding of DNA replication, gene expression, etc. is below the high school level, as best I can tell.
You are really claiming that all mutations already exist? Do you actually believe the things you wrote, or are you just purposely being annoying?
It was already a possibility Tas. A G was replaced by a T, and a T already exists.
And that has what to do with your repeated "transcribing it into an order it was not originally in" nonsense? All of the nuceotides "already exist". What "order", and why mention "transcription"?
What do you think you are proving? WHY was it 'already a possibility'? I find it fantastic that you are so 'well, all possible mutations are already a possibility because they already exist' when confronted with the fact that you do not seem to understand the basic processes that occur in cells, while in other contexts you are adamant that NO mutations occur at all, or if they do, they are all bad, or whatever. It is almost comical.
Almost.
In fact, you contradict yourself on this concept all over the place. A few examples:
"Mutations do not prove past similarity, they instead prove past dissimilarity."
How is this possible if mutations are just 'copy errors' that 'already exist'?
"So in developing an eye the body keeps these useless mutations until the point where it becomes functional? Expends energy keeping alive what until the entire process is complete what is useless on its own?"
That one is especially pertinent - I mean, if all mutations already exist (even as 'possibilities'), then how is this a bad thing?
"If random mutations caused the separation of races, then they should have random junk DNA from those random mutations."
That one is fractally wrong, but whatever...
And so on...
It could just as easily been incorrectly copied with any letter. And all already exist as possibilities....
I don't think you understand the difference between something 'existing' and something being a possibility. And I still see that you do not seem to understand that DNA is not 'letters'. And it also appears that you think DNA are just 'copied' willy-nilly from free floating nucleotides. Or something. It is all just gibberish, when you peel away the mock indignation.
Apparently more than you who are still arguing that alleles passed through introgression are mutated alleles....
Amazing. What do you think they are?
Having copy-pasted your special quotes all these times, you apparently have not once bothered to actually understand any of them.
It should have been obvious from the context of even that paper you linked what introgression is. You seem to think that it 'produces' new alleles, but it merely introduces new ones to a population. And where do 'new alleles' come from? Well, for about the 20th time, from one of your quotes, we see very clearly what the source of these new alleles is - yet this particular instance is a sad rarity. For in it, we see
the strange workings of the Dunning-Krugerite mind in action:
Yes, I understand you don't understand what is said, but only see what you want to.
"We may add one more difference between a mutated allele and one 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)."
In other words a genome in which deleterious mutations have been purged and any beneficial mutations already gone to fixation. Therefore the new allele is not the mutated allele, all mutations have been deleted or fixed already.
Incredible, isn't it? I am accused of only seeing what I want to see in that quote, and then the creationist merely bolds only the parts that he thinks helps his cause (seeing only what he wants to see, almost literally), whereas it is plainly obvious from the quote that the 'introgressed' allele is the one that has already been purged of deleterious mutations, fixed the beneficial ones, and been 'shaped by natural selection.'
I literally cannot understand what the creationist is trying to do on this issue. He is clearly wrong, yet persists in providing the same 'arguments' in which he believes he is right over and over.
Introgression or introgressive hybridization is the incorporation (usually via hybridization and backcrossing) of alleles from one entity (species) into the gene pool of a second, divergent entity (species).
And replication is simply producing two identical replicas of an original.
LOL!
And what if one of the copies is NOT identical to the original?
You know, like what happens EVERY TIME DNA replication happens?
.. Transcription copies the DNA into RNA, Replication copies DNA into DNA.
You are copying what already exists and simply make an error in the copying process.... The combination which is already possible.
What 'combination'? Who ever said it was NOT 'possible' (besides you, in a way)?
It has everything to do with copying. TWO DNA are copied from one original DNA....
Yes - during replication. Not transcription - do you really think those two processes are the same thing?
I know they alter the sequence of the mRNA that was supposed to be made and hence affect the polypeptides....
And how do they alter mRNA sequence, do you think?
Not sudden? It happens at the moment conception starts and those DNA are being replicated.
Wow - you are totally conflating and confusing things here. You had written:
"Don’t try to play your I am suddenly ignorant games and can’t conprehend..."
to which I replied:
"It is pretty obviously not a game, and there is no suddenness to it at all."
and it had nothing to do with conception. My gosh...
You have documented your own erroras time and again and every time I seem to have to correct them.
That is so weird how that has totally never happened.
Surely, if in you fantasies this really happened, you can provide a clear cut example?
Which is why in the end you always bring up your only major claim... a spelling error on my part, because that's all you have....
Actually, I have refuted pretty much every claim you have made. And it is not 'spelling errors', it is conceptual errors and your obvious lack of familiarity with the very topics you are arguing about. AND your inability to admit to even trivial errors.
The ONLY thing I listed that was a "spelling error" [sic - I don't consider it a spelling error when you kept doing after I had corrected you a dozen times] was the "allie" thing - the others are just... you being you - completely erroneous gibberish, false accusations, etc.:
I am not the one that claims new alleles are produce via reproduction/hybridization. I am not the one that thinks the title of a book about a guy researching his family history proves that a certain term is a scientific term. I am not the one claiming that hybridization produces variation from a non-variable breeding pair. i am not the one claiming that the word "mutated" does not appear in a quote that I presented that clearly does contain the word "mutated."
But you have your fantasies to live out, I suppose.
Case in point.... Your only real claim to error is a simple spelling error....
I know, because you refuse to admit the truth that it is introgression which causes it, the backcrossing with the parent subspecies, not a mutation which would not need another subspecies to be passed.......
What is the backcrossing you refer to? I mean, I know what it means, I know what introgression is, I know where new alleles come from, etc., but this part of your sentence:
"the truth that it is introgression which causes it, the backcrossing with the parent subspecies," makes no sense.
And you still just refuse to accept where those new alleles came from, even when your own sources define them as having been mutants processed via natural selection.
Except every time we only end up documenting your errors except for my simple spelling error.....
Only 1 of these was a spelling error:
I am not the one that claims new alleles are produce via reproduction/hybridization. I am not the one that thinks the title of a book about a guy researching his family history proves that a certain term is a scientific term. I am not the one claiming that hybridization produces variation from a non-variable breeding pair. i am not the one claiming that the word "mutated" does not appear in a quote that I presented that clearly does contain the word "mutated."
There are many others I could have mentioned that have nothing to do with your bad spelling, but rather your layman's level of understanding of things that you try to argue on as an 'authority'.
