Incorrect Assumptions of Past Similarities

[Justatruthseeker]

You seem to forget the part where the random mutation is then subsequently inherited by off spring. And their off spring. And their off spring. And........ so on.

This accumulation of mutations is exactly what allows "working backwards", Zweistein.
It's exactly what produces nested hierarchies.
It's exactly what forms family trees.
It's exactly what you keep ignoring and/or get wrong.

Based upon the assumption you can know when the mutation occurred? Based upon the assumption you can know the frequency of them?

Postulated crud then, right?

It's like you have no idea AT ALL about how DNA works.
Do the test.
Gather DNA samples from you, your sibling, your distant cousin and 97 other random people.
Send them anonymously to a lab and ask how the samples are related.

It would cost you money, but you'll have black on white evidence that they really don't have a problem determining wich of these samples are related to what level.

Exactly it would be a waste of money beingcwe both know they will only be able to tell we share 12% Asian genes, etc, not when any divergence occurred. Who you trying to convince with that PR, yourself?

If sample A and sample B are determined to being siblings, that doesn't tell you something about their shared ancestry???????
Or if they are cousins? Or distant cousins?

Yes, it tells me that without samples from further back you can’t tell me when we were related. It tells me you require samples of all right now to determine ancestors, but can’t tell when we became related or when we were not.....

Please take you DNA and send it to the Genographic Project.
It'll cost you 100 bucks but at least you'll learn something.

Money well spend imo.

Money wasted to tell me I am 12% Irish, 8% Scottish, 32% German, etc.

Won’t tell me a thing about when the German line entered, or Irish, etc. Now will it. Be honest for once in your life if that is possible.

PR gets you nowhere except into fantasy land.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Based upon the assumption you can know when the mutation occurred? Based upon the assumption you can know the frequency of them?



Exactly it would be a waste of money beingcwe both know they will only be able to tell we share 12% Asian genes, etc, not when any divergence occurred. Who you trying to convince with that PR, yourself?


Yes, it tells me that without samples from further back you can’t tell me when we were related. It tells me you require samples of all right now to determine ancestors, but can’t tell when we became related or when we were not.....




Money wasted to tell me I am 12% Irish, 8% Scottish, 32% German, etc.

Won’t tell me a thing about when the German line entered, or Irish, etc. Now will it. Be honest for once in your life if that is possible.

PR gets you nowhere except into fantasy land.

Just about every claim you made in this post has already been addressed in previous postings.

It's just the same PRATTs over and over and over and over again.


Again: do yourself a favor and just dish out the 100 bucks to the Genographic Project. You'ld be surprised what they can tell you based on your anonymous DNA alone.

Then again... you'll just deny everything, return here and continue preaching the same PRATTs.


So yeah....


Whatever.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

View attachment 241822


Just about every claim you made in this post has already been addressed in previous postings.

It's just the same PRATTs over and over and over and over again.


Again: do yourself a favor and just dish out the 100 bucks to the Genographic Project. You'ld be surprised what they can tell you based on your anonymous DNA alone.

Then again... you'll just deny everything, return here and continue preaching the same PRATTs.


So yeah....


Whatever.

That’s exactly what you have done, buried your head in the sand.

In every single post the only thing you all have done IS MAKE CLAIMS. You need to learn what proof is, because your constantly repeating the mantra that you have disproved anything is bogus. You have made claim after claim, nothing else.

While we know from facts that no DNA test can tell me when any single ethnic group, such as Irish entered my lineage, nor if and when my lineage diverged from another.

It’s all PR garbage and you and I both know it. Granted, you prefer burying your heads in the sand and ignoring reality, but then that’s why you have not produced one spec of evidence that shows we can tell when a specific lineage entered anyone’s ancestory.

Because claims is ALL you have. So I ask again, who are you trying to convince with your PR, yourself? Or weak minded fools that are unable to use deductive reasoning and follow popular belief and don’t care if what they believe is true or not?

 

[DogmaHunter]

That’s exactly what you have done, buried your head in the sand.

In every single post the only thing you all have done IS MAKE CLAIMS. You need to learn what proof is, because your constantly repeating the mantra that you have disproved anything is bogus. You have made claim after claim, nothing else.

While we know from facts that no DNA test can tell me when any single ethnic group, such as Irish entered my lineage, nor if and when my lineage diverged from another.

It’s all PR garbage and you and I both know it. Granted, you prefer burying your heads in the sand and ignoring reality, but then that’s why you have not produced one spec of evidence that shows we can tell when a specific lineage entered anyone’s ancestory.

Because claims is ALL you have. So I ask again, who are you trying to convince with your PR, yourself? Or weak minded fools that are unable to use deductive reasoning and follow popular belief and don’t care if what they believe is true or not?

Again: send your DNA to the Genographic Project and see for yourself.
Don't take me word on it. Never take anyones word on anything, for that matter.

 

[tas8831]

That’s just it. Since mutations are random, and affect things randomly, you can’t work backwards. At every single mutation point what was before is no longer able to be known.

CLUELESS....


Mutations are random with regard to fitness. They are random in that you cannot predict the precise locus at which a mutation will occur.

As you like to pretend that you are knowledgeable in this topic, explain to us all, if you can, how this all works -

You have kids (I hope not)? Your kids have some of the same new mutations you have. They will pass some of them down to their kids. And your grandkids will pass down some of them to their kids. And so on.

Now please explain how you "can't work backwards".

Also, as time goes on, your grandkids and their grandkids will have kids of their own. There will be distant cousins, all with you in their ancestry - not direct ancestor, but AN ancestor. Do you think it would be possible to analyze the DNA of some of these cousins of the future - your distant 'offspring', so to speak - and discern that they are related to each other?

Why or why not?

And if these future descendants of yours cannot identify YOU as one of their ancestors, does that mean that they are NOT actually related?

Please explain your answer.

And no, you can’t trace ancestors back. All tests can do is tell you where those that share similar DNA live “today”. They can’t tell you how long ago you share an ancestor without DNA from that ancestor.... All they can do is tell you that you share 14% similarities with this region, 18% with that one, etc.

And you draw these conclusions based on your immense knowledge of genetics, as exemplified by your claims such as 'the genetic strand', and new alleles are produced by mating, and that 'continuous variation' is not only what we claim we use to trace lineages, but that this makes it impossible to trace lineages? Amazing.

 

[Kaon]

Yah I’d avoid your inconsistencies of calling squash and cucumbers separate species because they can’t cross-pollinate while admitting varieties of a species can too. Then calling wheat separate species despite the fact they can cross-pollinate.

As I have always said: error after uncorrected error, incorrect classification after incorrect classification is the ToE.......

And, this is just the conceptual error. It begins with an error in mathematical assumptions: namely, timescale.

One of the most important features of science as opposed to academia is that science should provide a clear enough procedure and accessibility so much so that a layperson can come along, do everything done in experiments, and reproduce the same results, or be challenged.

 

[tas8831]

Odd that justa replied to several of my posts after this one, but darn it just never got around to dealing with this...

LOL! It never ends... I am 100% certain that you have no idea what that means.

It wasn't "modeled" on the human genome - the human genome was used as a reference.
It is painfully easy to spot someone that has ZERO experience or knowledge of any of this stuff when you write hyperbolic nonsense like that.

Tell us all what you think "chimp genome was modeled on the human genome" means.


Tell us all what you think "they built one using the other" means.
LOL!

OK, genetics expert - I await your explanation as to how genomes are assembled for analysis.

Here is the actual paper:
High-resolution comparative analysis of great ape genomes

Explain it all to us.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Because you like to ignore reality.

Comparison of 18,000 De Novo Assembled Chimpanzee Contigs to the Human Genome Yields Average BLASTN Alignment Identities of 84%

“One of the chief problems with all versions of the chimpanzee genome prior to PanTro6, is that they were not constructed through the use of an accurate integrated physical-genetic map and its corresponding genomic resources in a systematic fashion like the human genome and other key model animal genomes (Tomkins 2011). Instead, short DNA sequences generated by the sequencing machinery (known as trace reads) largely produced through a whole genome shotgun approach were assembled onto the human genome using it as a reference scaffold (Mikkelsen et al. 2005; Prado-Martinez et al. 2013; Tomkins 2011). This was done not only out of convenience and a lack of available resources, but the dogmatic evolutionary presupposition that humans evolved from apes and shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees about 3 to 6 million years ago.”

No other key animal genome was built using any other animal as a reference scaffold. Pre-conceived ideas is what led to this flawed and biased approach.

And quit preaching your 98%....

“Excluding data for the large amount of chimp sequence that failed to align, a very conservative estimate of human-chimp DNA similarity genome-wide is 86.4 to 88.9 percent, based on the initial round of research data. It is noteworthy that the parameters that produced the longest and more statistically robust alignments also produced the lowest similarities. Obviously, if the non-aligning chimp data were included in the final data summary, estimated similarities would be even lower.”

But I reject even that lower number as BLAST algorithms compare any sequence matches regardless of where they are found within the genome. They can be in different places and have completely different functions. It cares not, just that any match is found. Similarity of function need not be considered, when function is everything....

 

[tas8831]

Because you like to ignore reality.

Comparison of 18,000 De Novo Assembled Chimpanzee Contigs to the Human Genome Yields Average BLASTN Alignment Identities of 84%

So precious how so much is ignored - even more precious that after complaining about the use of BLAST, this one cites a creationist hack known for his incompetence and dishonesty ... who USED BLAST.

One has to wonder yet again why Tomkins will not use his amazing methods on intra-Kind variants.

But I reject even that lower number as BLAST algorithms compare any sequence matches regardless of where they are found within the genome.

Why should anyone even care what you think about these things?

They can be in different places and have completely different functions.

Why do you keep writing things that have no relevance?

It cares not, just that any match is found. Similarity of function need not be considered, when function is everything....

No, phylogenetic signal is everything.

Still waiting for your explanation of the origin of the first Asian.

Also waiting for Tomkins to test Creation fantasies using his BLASTN technique.

 

[tas8831]

Because you like to ignore reality.

Tomkins is a funny guy with a chip on his shoulder.

Your sad reference to his 'paper' inspired me to look back on some of his other 'work.'
I came across an installment on the fake news site "uncommondescent" in which his paper on the GULO gene was heralded. A fellow going by "Aceofspades25" produced a lengthy easily checked takedown/debunking of Tomkins' claims. Tomkins showed up, claimed he was totally right no matter what, spewed a few slogans, and skulked off. The comments section was then inexplicably shut down, forcing Aceofspades25 to post his response to Tomkins on Reddit.
Tomkins showed up there, too, but all he did was insult and condescend and offer more of his 'I'm right no matter what' whining and again skulked off.

Of note however is that Tomkins provided 2 links to his data on Reddit that he claimed supported his findings - both links are now dead. To be fair, Aceofspades25 provided a couple of links that are now also dead, but these were to public sources or to dropbox files, whereas Tomkins had linked to his own blog and a creationist/ID site. Odd...

It was also cute that on Reddit, Tomkins claimed that his AiG essays are 'peer reviewed papers'.

 

[tas8831]

In every single post the only thing you all have done IS MAKE CLAIMS. You need to learn what proof is, because your constantly repeating the mantra that you have disproved anything is bogus. You have made claim after claim, nothing else.

Such obvious projection is not frequently seen. Except on these forums.

While we know from facts that no DNA test can tell me when any single ethnic group, such as Irish entered my lineage, nor if and when my lineage diverged from another.

Is that what any of these tests claim to be able to do?
As I mentioned previously, I and some of my family sent samples in to one of these companies. Yes, they gave us the 60% this and that, and they also found possible/probable relatives in their database. Their algorithm, for example, correctly deduced my children were my children and 2 of siblings were my siblings and a couple of my cousins are my cousins, and then there were a bunch of 'possibles'. But nowhere was there any mention of dates of intermingling.
Because that is not the sort of information that the types of testing this company employs can provide.

Why do you keep expecting to get information from analyses that are not purported to to provide such information in the first place?

you have not produced one spec of evidence that shows we can tell when a specific lineage entered anyone’s ancestory.

Why would we?

Because claims is ALL you have. So I ask again, who are you trying to convince with your PR, yourself? Or weak minded fools that are unable to use deductive reasoning and follow popular belief and don’t care if what they believe is true or not?

That you expect that which you should not is your own fault only.

 

[tas8831]

No other key animal genome was built using any other animal as a reference scaffold.

The tiger genome used domestic cat as a reference to 'improve' the assembly.

Pre-conceived ideas is what led to this flawed and biased approach.

Right, if you say so.

And quit preaching your 98%....

No. Tomkins will not tell you what the relevance of the number are, nor will Buggs (whose expertise is plants). Tomkins' number games do not negate previous direct sequence comparisons.

Just for fun - ignoring all of what really counts in terms of molecular phylogenetic analysis, what is the % identity 'cut off' for relatedness, in your view?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The tiger genome used domestic cat as a reference to 'improve' the assembly.

Right, if you say so.

No. Tomkins will not tell you what the relevance of the number are, nor will Buggs (whose expertise is plants). Tomkins' number games do not negate previous direct sequence comparisons.

Just for fun - ignoring all of what really counts in terms of molecular phylogenetic analysis, what is the % identity 'cut off' for relatedness, in your view?

Ahhh, his number games don't negate your number games?????

What phylogenetic analysis????

You don't take a child's DNA, snip it apart and then match any part with any other part to a prospective parent to see if they are related do you??????

Oh, you meant in your fake analysis..... Sorry, I didn't mean to interject reality into your fantasy world....

 

[tas8831]

Ahhh, his number games don't negate your number games?????

What number games?

What phylogenetic analysis????

ANY phylogenetic analysis. Tomkins should know that phylogenetic analyses using DNA or proteins are not interested in function (though functional studies can be done using the same basic techniques), and this is why people doing such analyses still like to use loci like pseudogenes because they tend to accrue more mutation than exonic regions do, and thus give the analytical programs 'more data' to work with.

You don't take a child's DNA, snip it apart and then match any part with any other part to a prospective parent to see if they are related do you??????

No - and that is not actually done in phylogenetic analyses, either.

Oh, you meant in your fake analysis..... Sorry, I didn't mean to interject reality into your fantasy world....

You didn't. You interjected your usual imaginations of your mind, wherein you understand way more than you really do, as documented in your years of uninformed yet overconfident (i.e., rich in the Dunning-Kruger effect) rambling.

Perhaps you should take your show on the road like Tolkien and Dad and pshun have done - seeing if you have better luck posting the same bogus "arguments" on other forums.


Most interesting that you ignored this:

Just for fun - ignoring all of what really counts in terms of molecular phylogenetic analysis, what is the % identity 'cut off' for relatedness, in your view?

Creationists don't like to answer such questions, I suspect because deep down, they know that if they throw out a concrete number, they will have some 'splaining to do when it is shown that, for example 2 humans cannot be related, or two 'intrakinds' cannot be related.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What number games?


ANY phylogenetic analysis. Tomkins should know that phylogenetic analyses using DNA or proteins are not interested in function (though functional studies can be done using the same basic techniques), and this is why people doing such analyses still like to use loci like pseudogenes because they tend to accrue more mutation than exonic regions do, and thus give the analytical programs 'more data' to work with.

That's just it though, isn't it. In the genome, function is everything....... You do realize parts of genomes have specific functions, yes? So just comparing similarity of letters tells nothing, it is function which matters. Only the parts that align directly, in the same areas, can ever be considered similar. Any other process is just plain pseudoscience.....

You didn't. You interjected your usual imaginations of your mind, wherein you understand way more than you really do, as documented in your years of uninformed yet overconfident (i.e., rich in the Dunning-Kruger effect) rambling.

Sort of like this rambling which never answered anything??? Just avoided as usual???

Perhaps you should take your show on the road like Tolkien and Dad and pshun have done - seeing if you have better luck posting the same bogus "arguments" on other forums.

Or more ramblings like this which also never answered anything, but just avoided????

Most interesting that you ignored this:

Most interesting you ignored my entire post in the evolutionists brick wall II when it came time to explain your view and introgression.... Have you bothered to read up on that yet?

Just for fun - ignoring all of what really counts in terms of molecular phylogenetic analysis, what is the % identity 'cut off' for relatedness, in your view?

Creationists don't like to answer such questions, I suspect because deep down, they know that if they throw out a concrete number, they will have some 'splaining to do when it is shown that, for example 2 humans cannot be related, or two 'intrakinds' cannot be related.

Comparing two human genomes we could compare function and find they were almost exactly identical in every area studied, without having to cut them apart and force fit any area to any other non-related area.

Hmmmm, funny how that works when two things are actually related by ancestory..... we can just compare them genome to genome and find they are almost the same.... You can pick any number you want, all you got to do is do the same thing with chimps as you do with humans - compare each section directly to the other, not cut it all up and match any part with any part.....

Pseudoscience Tas, and you can't even let yourself "see" it....

 

[tas8831]

LOL! It never ends... I am 100% certain that you have no idea what that means.

It wasn't "modeled" on the human genome - the human genome was used as a reference.
It is painfully easy to spot someone that has ZERO experience or knowledge of any of this stuff when you write hyperbolic nonsense like that.

Tell us all what you think "chimp genome was modeled on the human genome" means.


Tell us all what you think "they built one using the other" means.
LOL!

OK, genetics expert - I await your explanation as to how genomes are assembled for analysis.

Here is the actual paper:
High-resolution comparative analysis of great ape genomes

Explain it all to us.

And he never did...

But he is now spreading the same goofy lies on another forum. Creationists - know them by their fruit.

 

[tas8831]

That's just it though, isn't it. In the genome, function is everything.

Not when it comes to phylogeny.
But then, how would you even know?

...... You do realize parts of genomes have specific functions, yes?

Some parts do, yes. Some parts have several functions, some have no real function at all, unless the definition of function is expanded to be nearly meaningless.
Again, how would you even know?

So just comparing similarity of letters tells nothing, it is function which matters.

Do you still think that nucelotides are actually just 'letters'?
But thanks for continuing to admit - unwittingly, of course - that you are clueless when it comes to understanding anything relating to genetics, not to mention phylogenetics.

Only the parts that align directly, in the same areas, can ever be considered similar.

Insightful.
Give us all an example or 2?

Here is a DNA sequence database:

Home - Nucleotide - NCBI

How about you use your self-realized superior knowledge of all science to show us some real-life examples of what you mean, to demonstrate your superior understanding?

Sort of like this rambling which never answered anything??? Just avoided as usual???

Right - remind me again where it was that you explained the genetic mechanisms for getting a new phenotype from the mating of Adam and Eve? i.e., where Africans and Asian came from as the result of the interbreeding/inbreeding of 2 identical middle easterners.

Most interesting you ignored my entire post in the evolutionists brick wall II when it came time to explain your view and introgression.... Have you bothered to read up on that yet?

You mean you missed where I documented that you had misrepresented what introgression actually means? In that thread? Like here:

Evolution's Brick Wall: Part II

Bless your heart!

But isn't it interesting how creationists demand that all of their mere assertions be directly responded to, explained, etc., but think they don't have to do the same? Very interesting.

Comparing two human genomes we could compare function and find they were almost exactly identical in every area studied,

Example?

without having to cut them apart and force fit any area to any other non-related area.

Example?

Hmmmm, funny how that works when two things are actually related by ancestory..... we can just compare them genome to genome and find they are almost the same.

You mean like this? From almost 15 years ago?


Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome

... You can pick any number you want, all you got to do is do the same thing with chimps as you do with humans - compare each section directly to the other, not cut it all up and match any part with any part.....

I have no real idea where you got your new mantra from - this nonsense about 'cut it all up and match any part with any part'. Pretty sure it was that hack Tomkins, because that is what he had to do to prop up his lies.
I do know that you ignore any and all information about these things are ACTUALLY done by competent, knowledgeable people - that is the only way you can keep pretending to understand all this stuff.

Sad part is, any college sophomore (or even many high school students) biology major probably knows how clueless you are.

Pseudoscience Tas, and you can't even let yourself "see" it....

Hilarious - you are like a fat, bald couch potato screaming "You suck!" at a professional athlete...

 

[loveofourlord]

....what?? Are they deleterious, or not? If not, then they aren't deleterious mutations, are they. If as you say, they start out as something else, then "become" deleterious, then that's when they tend to delete themselves, right?

In short, Deleterious mutations (a set, or otherwise) do indeed tend to delete themselves, not sure how you get around that. Neutral mutations accumulate as neutral mutations, regardless of what they might be later on.

I could be wrong, but I think he means how many cancers are caused by the breaking down of multiple genes, so if someone is born with one of those genes broken they have less ones to break later.

 

[tas8831]

Perhaps you should take your show on the road like Tolkien and Dad and pshun have done

He did.

- seeing if you have better luck posting the same bogus "arguments" on other forums.

And he didn't.