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.
Mark is big on verbal judo, passive aggressive insults and selective amnesia. Get used to that if you're going to continue to engage him.So you don't have any examples, then? No evidence for your claim?
So you don't have any examples, then? No evidence for your claim?
Mark is big on verbal judo, passive aggressive insults and selective amnesia. Get used to that if you're going to continue to engage him.
Mutations are the known molecular mechanism for the event of getting requisite modifications.
You expect to see a DNA mutation in the fossil record?
Science is not allowed to discuss God, and therefore science doesn't eliminate God.
Your arguments about bad mutations being a problem are simply fallacious and you have never explained why you don't understand they are simply eliminated over time precisely because their own badness makes them go away
The evidence for evolution remains stronger than ever. The tree of life showing common descent of all life is confirmed every time a new species is discovered, whether still alive or extinct.
Every science has areas on the cutting edge where more is still being discovered. You find these in biology and think you've found where mystery trumps established facts.
It is no more going to succeed than those who find discussion of the mysteries of the trinity to be mysterious are going to be able to bring down Christianity.
No comprehension or acknowledgement of what a genomic comparison actually is and some convoluted semantics, you are consistant.
Transcription and translation, those are the two concepts you need to wrap your mind around and then mutations being the result of copy errors. That would be progress.
Try to wrap your mind around a very simple concept, mutations are copy errors.
Quote mining, that a new fallacy for you. Glad to see you expanding your horizons.
He didn't, God created two separate lineages. It's called originally created kinds.
Which is an effect without a cause, predictable.
The rest is close encounters of the pedantic one liners, enjoy the melt down, I know I will. You are falling farther and faster then I am used to, this is surprisingly easy.
Have a nice day
Mark
First of all I don't call people liars because I don't share their worldview or presuppositions.
Secondly there seems to be a misunderstanding about c compaparative genomics. When they compare two sequences it's like layi g out two strands of beads with four different color beads. Every genome should show at least 25 percent sequence identity since there are only four base pairs. When it's a single base pair difference they call it a substitution if there is something in one but not in the other its called an indel. When you have three unique genes they call a duplication. Now I don't know what you think these novel genes do to my argument but so far I haven't actually made one yet but I will soon and often.
If things alike are proof for common ancestry then differences argue against it.
The are several noted including epilipsee and autism. This scenario doesn't even have to be negated based on the deleterious effects of mutations since the burden of proof is on getting two to four duplications in such a highly conserved region and then add multiply exons with perfect protein translslation in such a highly conserved gene.
I don't think so, it sounds like a fairly typical red herring.
The burden of proof is on the positive argument for a duplication resulting in an almost perfectly developed protein product.
What you lack is a molecular mechanism producing the requisite amino acid sequences and exon development.
These burdens are cumulative when you finally realize the enormity of the required steps required.
I don't need a positive argument because the burden of proof is on whoever might think gene duplication is a viable explanation.
Even if it's the case the gene duplication is viable getting the requisite protein product is riddled with deleterious effects, with no developmental pathways producing the alternate and requisite developed gene you have nothing but presupposition and speculation.
Have a nice day
Mark
No I said mutations do cause disease and disorder:
You melted down quick, don't get me wrong, I have enjoyed the reading I have been doing. The real problem is that you are asking the same question in circles and it's just too bad. Yet another evidence that the rise of the human brain from that of apes is a myth and you missed the inadvertent problems with the deleterious effects that would have inevitably had to have been mitigated and you respond with fallacious rhetoric.
That's just too bad and it's your problem. I will not answer the same question in circles because I know it's just a head trip game to you guys. Do a little reading and maybe we can talk some more, other then that you are wasting your time and mine. Thanks though, this has been an invaluable contribution to my ongoing interest in why the evolution of the human brain from that of apes is impossible. You didn't even have an argument, that is priceless.
Have a nice day
Mark
That still isn't evidence that moving from the chimp SRGAP2 to the human SRGAP2 would involve deleterious effects.I sure did:
That still isn't evidence that moving from the chimp SRGAP2 to the human SRGAP2 would involve deleterious effects.
You keep claiming that drinking milk is dangerous and then citing to evidence that drinking cyanide is dangerous. Please support the claims you have actually made.
What we have here is you have not bothered to learn how the comparison is characterized and what, if any, mutations are likely.
That really doesn't matter because mutations are the worst possible explanation for this enormous difference, that's a given.
Mutations in brain related genes have deleterious effects,
Answer his question.
You claimed that the mutations needed to get from the chimp version of the SRGAP2 gene to the human version would be deleterious. Where is your evidence?
I made no such claim.
I said the mutations in brain related genes with an effect are invariably deleterious.
First of all I haven't really made an argument and the effects of mutations on brain related genes are not a serious question, they are invariably deleterious.
Adam wants an example of this, asking for it in circles relentlessly so I provided one:
We report on a female patient with early infantile epileptic encephalopathy and severe psychomotor disability possessing a de novo balanced translocation t(1;9)(q32;q13). The patient showed clonic convulsions of extremities 2 days after birth. Electroencephalogram (EEG) transiently showed atypical suppression-burst pattern. (Early infantile epileptic encephalopathy associated with the disrupted gene encoding Slit-Robo Rho GTPase activating protein 2 (SRGAP2) Am J Med Genet A. 2012)He ignored it, again and again and again...
Actual mutations that have an effect are always deleterious:
.
You can't prove that. You merely assert it, without proof.
It is not enough to find a mutation that had a deleterious effect. The claim from science is most are deleterious but a few are beneficial.
You have to prove, somehow, that a mutation is always deleterious. What you have done is simply take that as an axiom, without bothering to have evidence or proof for your axiom.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?