Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Incorrect Assumptions of Past Similarities
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="DogmaHunter" data-source="post: 73212455" data-attributes="member: 346237"><p>You seem to forget the part where the random mutation is then subsequently<strong> inherited by off spring. And their off spring. And their off spring. And........ so on.</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p>This accumulation of mutations is<strong> exactly</strong> what allows "working backwards", Zweistein.</p><p>It's<strong> exactly</strong> what produces nested hierarchies.</p><p>It's<strong> exactly</strong> what forms family trees.</p><p>It's<strong> exactly</strong> what you keep ignoring and/or get wrong.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>LOLOLOLOLOL!!!</p><p></p><p>It's like you have no idea AT ALL about how DNA works.</p><p>Do the test. </p><p>Gather DNA samples from you, your sibling, your distant cousin and 97 other random people.</p><p>Send them anonymously to a lab and ask how the samples are related.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>If sample A and sample B are determined to being siblings, that doesn't tell you something about their shared ancestry???????</p><p>Or if they are cousins? Or distant cousins?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>LOL!</p><p></p><p>How utterly wrong you are.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Please take you DNA and send it to the Genographic Project.</p><p>It'll cost you 100 bucks but at least you'll learn something.</p><p></p><p>Money well spend imo.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DogmaHunter, post: 73212455, member: 346237"] You seem to forget the part where the random mutation is then subsequently[B] inherited by off spring. And their off spring. And their off spring. And........ so on. [/B] This accumulation of mutations is[B] exactly[/B] what allows "working backwards", Zweistein. It's[B] exactly[/B] what produces nested hierarchies. It's[B] exactly[/B] what forms family trees. It's[B] exactly[/B] what you keep ignoring and/or get wrong. LOLOLOLOLOL!!! 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. 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? LOL! How utterly wrong you are. 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Incorrect Assumptions of Past Similarities
Top
Bottom