Science says...

[Willtor]

Regarding the code analogy: It's also worth observing that even a change within a coding region still codes for a protein. This is not true with a binary, where, for example, certain changes mean that you no longer have a well-formed binary.

A better analogy might be the number that codes for a Sudoku puzzle in Web Sudoku. You can get your puzzle number, modify it (including insertions or deletions), re-input it, and it will generate another puzzle. Likewise, changes in your genes (sometimes) lead to changes in the proteins. But this is different from a compiled binary.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Regarding the code analogy: It's also worth observing that even a change within a coding region still codes for a protein. This is not true with a binary, where, for example, certain changes mean that you no longer have a well-formed binary.

A better analogy might be the number that codes for a Sudoku puzzle in Web Sudoku. You can get your puzzle number, modify it (including insertions or deletions), re-input it, and it will generate another puzzle. Likewise, changes in your genes (sometimes) lead to changes in the proteins. But this is different from a compiled binary.

You might have a point, if it wasn't for the simple observational fact that Asian mates with African producing an Afro-Asian - all by the recombination of genes and new dominant and recessive traits. No evolution by mutation is needed in real life to produce the variety we see. The natural transcription process takes into account the differing genes and transcribes them accordingly.

I do however admit that mutations sometimes accidentally make it past the repair mechanism - and that babies are born deformed, stunted or mentally challenged.

 

[Loudmouth]

You might have a point, if it wasn't for the simple observational fact that Asian mates with African producing an Afro-Asian -

Where did the Asian come from?

No evolution by mutation is needed in real life to produce the variety we see.

Please show how you get chimps and humans from a common ancestor without mutations.

The natural transcription process takes into account the differing genes and transcribes them accordingly.

What does that even mean? How do you get a change in gene transcription other than mutation? If the upstream sequence remains the same, why would expression for that gene ever change?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Do you still not understand what a God of the Gaps fallacy is?

Sure I do, I see it every day here as evolutionists try to tell me all about gap theory to explain away their lack of transitional forms.

How is evolution random math and random patterns?

Are you claiming it is by design then?

 

[Loudmouth]

Sure I do, I see it every day here as evolutionists try to tell me all about gap theory to explain away their lack of transitional forms.

We have real transitional fossils.

Are you claiming it is by design then?

I am claiming that it is by the mechanisms of evolution which are not random math or random patterns.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Where did the Asian come from?

Trace em back to that original pair in what would by design be a hierarchical pattern. Because you see, you always need two. One set of DNA from the male, one set of DNA from the female. And when those two unite, they become one again. The problem is evolution has it backwards. It is not simple to complex, but complex at the start degrading to simpler patterns.

Mutation has only been shown to take away genes, never add them. Until you admit this to yourself, you will forever wonder why. This is why it has been all but abandoned in plant and animal husbandry - the ONLY place mutation experiments were done with breeding animals and plants. Biologists know mutations have never produced anything new.

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

Please show how you get chimps and humans from a common ancestor without mutations.

They share no common ancestor, so how is one supposed to do that except by incorrectly classifying the fossil record and mixing up ape and human bones? You are starting from a flawed pre-conceived idea.

What does that even mean? How do you get a change in gene transcription other than mutation? If the upstream sequence remains the same, why would expression for that gene ever change?

Are you going to claim that when an Asian mates with an African - we get an Afro-Asian because of mutation? You really aren't going to try that strawman are you?

Perhaps you need to look up dominant and recessive traits and read a little more. Then if you still have questions we will talk. I am not here to educate you, just to correct your mistakes.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

We have real transitional fossils.

I am claiming that it is by the mechanisms of evolution which are not random math or random patterns.

No you don't, you merely have incorrect classifications. Incorrect classifications you still have yet to correct. How long will it take for them to finally wipe half of those off the books? And how long will you continue to use what you already know is incorrect?

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/17/skull-homo-erectus-human-evolution

Like I said before, Error built upon uncorrected error, built upon uncorrected error = the theory of evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

Trace em back to that original pair in what would by design be a hierarchical pattern.

Are the original pair Asian? If not, where did Asians come from?

Because you see, you always need two. One set of DNA from the male, one set of DNA from the female. And when those two unite, they become one again. The problem is evolution has it backwards. It is not simple to complex, but complex at the start degrading to simpler patterns.

How are single celled organisms found in the Pre-cambrian the most complex and modern humans the least complex?

Mutation has only been shown to take away genes, never add them.

So you are saying that there are no differences between chimp and human DNA?

What do you think causes chimps and humans to be different? It is due to a difference in DNA, is it not?

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

Did he do any sequencing to back up his claims?

They share no common ancestor, so how is one supposed to do that except by incorrectly classifying the fossil record and mixing up ape and human bones? You are starting from a flawed pre-conceived idea.

The genetic evidence proves we do have a common ancestor.

"Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 109 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14)."
http://www.pnas.org/content/96/18/10254.full

Humans and chimps share over 200,000 ERV's at the same location. If humans and chimps had received those ERV's through HGT, then they would be found at different locations in each genome. That isn't the case. They are found at the same location in each genome which proves that they were inherited through vertical inheritance from a common ancestor.

Are you going to claim that when an Asian mates with an African - we get an Afro-Asian because of mutation? You really aren't going to try that strawman are you?

Where did the Asian come from? Non-Asians?

Perhaps you need to look up dominant and recessive traits and read a little more. Then if you still have questions we will talk. I am not here to educate you, just to correct your mistakes.

Perhaps you need to look it up.

How do you get a change in gene expression without changing the upstream regulatory sequence or the transcription factors that bind to it

 

[RickG]

Sure I do, I see it every day here as evolutionists try to tell me all about gap theory to explain away their lack of transitional forms.

Isn't gap theory an old earth creationist idea?

 

[[serious]]

What would it take for a man (animal) to become a scientist?

The proper education.

The same way the proper education would be required for man (animal) to become an accountant, to become a lawyer, to become a plumber, etc. etc...

I'd say rigorous application of analytical thought personally. Formal education helps, but one can be a scientist without it.

 

[bhsmte]

I'd say rigorous application of analytical thought personally. Formal education helps, but one can be a scientist without it.

Agree. And, not all education is formal and I agree it doesn't have to be.