The 'Macro-Micro' thing....again..

[MarkT]

I am asking which of the differences between humans and chimps could not be produced by the observed mechanisms of mutation. Do you have an answer for that?

It's a nonsensical question. Apes and man are different creatures. There's no reason to account for a difference since they are not related.

 

[biggles53]

It's a nonsensical question. Apes and man are different creatures. There's no reason to account for a difference since they are not related.

So, it's a question you can't answer....or won't answer...?

Even if you assert that we and chimps are not related, can you please explain why it would be impossible for any of the bases in our genome (or the chimps') to mutate....?

 

[MarkT]

Which of the bases cannot be changed.....and why...?

The question is nonsensical. Are you suggesting you can change an ape into a man by changing bases? If you can then prove it.

 

[biggles53]

The question is nonsensical. Are you suggesting you can change an ape into a man by changing bases? If you can then prove it.

Please don't put words into my mouth....it's the sure sign of a desperate debater....

I simply asked you to explain why it would be impossible for any of those bases to mutate and why...?

 

[MarkT]

Please don't put words into my mouth....it's the sure sign of a desperate debater....

I simply asked you to explain why it would be impossible for any of those bases to mutate and why...?

Are you referring to the bases Loudmouth showed us; a picture of a human genome? I ask to what purpose? He asked what bases can not be changed? I ask, to what purpose? Are you trying to engineer the human genome to create a chimp?

I suppose any bases can be mutated. But what you will end up with is a sick human.

 

[MarkT]

Please don't put words into my mouth....it's the sure sign of a desperate debater....

I simply asked you to explain why it would be impossible for any of those bases to mutate and why...?

And don't ever accuse me of putting words in your mouth.

 

[Smidlee]

Are you referring to the bases Loudmouth showed us; a picture of a human genome? I ask to what purpose? He asked what bases can not be changed? I ask, to what purpose? Are you trying to engineer the human genome to create a chimp?

I suppose any bases can be mutated. But what you will end up with is a sick human.

He wants you to prove something is impossible. It's very hard to actually prove anything in science. You need to prove it impossible for the dGRN in the past to be a lot more flexible ( which would allow changes to the body plans) than they are today which pretty much falsifies macroevolution. The scientist are really admitting macroevolution is not falsifiable unless you can build a time machine.

 

[Shemjaza]

He wants you to prove something is impossible. It's very hard to actually prove anything in science. You need to prove it impossible for the dGRN in the past to be a lot more flexible ( which would allow changes to the body plans) than they are today which pretty much falsifies macroevolution. The scientist are really admitting macroevolution is not falsifiable unless you can build a time machine.

Are you ready to back up all these assertions yet?

Show us where dGRN prevents changes in body plan.

 

[MarkT]

He wants you to prove something is impossible. It's very hard to actually prove anything in science. You need to prove it impossible for the dGRN in the past to be a lot more flexible ( which would allow changes to the body plans) than they are today which pretty much falsifies macroevolution. The scientist are really admitting macroevolution is not falsifiable unless you can build a time machine.

I would rename macro evolution, call it reverse micro evolution, because it sounds like macro evolution is just a lot of micro evolution. Bu that's not what we are saying. We are saying you can derive species from a kind ie. you can get every species on earth from a few kinds, but you can not derive kinds from species.

 

[biggles53]

Are you referring to the bases Loudmouth showed us; a picture of a human genome? I ask to what purpose? He asked what bases can not be changed? I ask, to what purpose? Are you trying to engineer the human genome to create a chimp?

I suppose any bases can be mutated. But what you will end up with is a sick human.

Great....wise observation.

Now, will you also agree that the various phenotypes we observe in nature are as a result of particular genotypes persisting in their environments...?

 

[biggles53]

And don't ever accuse me of putting words in your mouth.

And I'm afraid you did.....you implied that I was suggesting we could "change an ape into a man", which is something I have never, nor would ever, suggest.....

 

[MarkT]

And I'm afraid you did.....you implied that I was suggesting we could "change an ape into a man", which is something I have never, nor would ever, suggest.....

That was a question. I gave Loudmouth a similar answer. I was not quoting you or saying you said it. Don't you ever say I put words in your mouth. Satan will put words in your mouth but I won't.

 

[Chany]

I would rename macro evolution, call it reverse micro evolution, because it sounds like macro evolution is just a lot of micro evolution. Bu that's not what we are saying. We are saying you can derive species from a kind ie. you can get every species on earth from a few kinds, but you can not derive kinds from species.

Macro is a bunch of micro changes overtime. All those changes over the generations for a million years can create something entirely different.

Technically, things like "species" are human concepts we interpose upon nature to create order. It's why scientists have such a hard time coming up with a viable definition for "species".

"Kind" is a baseless term. Are dogs a kind? Canines? Mammals?

If something's genetic code is made up of the same four base pairs, then it is possible to alter everything. I'm looking up how DNA gains base pairs.

 

[MarkT]

Great....wise observation.

Now, will you also agree that the various phenotypes we observe in nature are as a result of particular genotypes persisting in their environments...?

No answers for you.

 

[biggles53]

No answers for you.

Ah...I see. Great tactic. When you find yourself being boxed into corners with questions that embarrass you, find an excuse to play the aggrieved victim...

Very sound.....very adult....

 

[biggles53]

That was a question. I gave Loudmouth a similar answer. I was not quoting you or saying you said it. Don't you ever say I put words in your mouth. Satan will put words in your mouth but I won't.

And it was a question with an implication, as I said....otherwise, why ask it...?

 

[MarkT]

Macro is a bunch of micro changes overtime. All those changes over the generations for a million years can create something entirely different.

Technically, things like "species" are human concepts we interpose upon nature to create order. It's why scientists have such a hard time coming up with a viable definition for "species".

"Kind" is a baseless term. Are dogs a kind? Canines? Mammals?

If something's genetic code is made up of the same four base pairs, then it is possible to alter everything. I'm looking up how DNA gains base pairs.

Sorry for the confusion, but that is not what we mean by macro evolution. What we are saying is species can not give rise to kinds. You will never get a dog by mutating fish genes. The only thing you can derive from a species is another species of the same kind.

 

[MarkT]

And it was a question with an implication, as I said....otherwise, why ask it...?

I told you your question was nonsensical. That's why.

 

[Chany]

Sorry for the confusion, but that is not what we mean by macro evolution. What we are saying is species can not give rise to kinds. You will never get a dog by mutating fish genes. The only thing you can derive from a species is another species of the same kind.

Genes are composed of DNA and DNA is composed of base pairs. There are only four base pairs that form the entirety of all genetic material. The same exact building blocks are used to make fish genes and dog genes.

Lets say their gene codes are:

Dog:ACCTTACATGGCC

Fish:ATGGTAGCATTCA

Obviously they are, in reality, MUCH longer than that.

If we to switch two base pairs around for fish:

Dog: ACCTTACATGGCC

Fish: ACCGTAGCATTCA

And again:

Dog: ACCTTACATGGCC

Fish: ACCTTAGCATTCC

Looking a lot closer?

This is what happens during mutations. Obviously on a MUCH more subtle and small level, but it happens none the less.

 

[biggles53]

Genes are composed of DNA and DNA is composed of base pairs. There are only four base pairs that form the entirety of all genetic material. The same exact building blocks are used to make fish genes and dog genes.

Lets say their gene codes are:

Dog:ACCTTACATGGCC

Fish:ATGGTAGCATTCA

Obviously they are, in reality, MUCH longer than that.

If we to switch two base pairs around for fish:

Dog: ACCTTACATGGCC

Fish: ACCGTAGCATTCA

And again:

Dog: ACCTTACATGGCC

Fish: ACCTTAGCATTCC

Looking a lot closer?

This is what happens during mutations. Obviously on a MUCH more subtle and small level, but it happens none the less.

Yes, it's this kind of conclusion which Mark doesn't want to confront....

He agrees that those bases can mutate, he agrees (presumably) that the physical characteristics of species are determined by the arrangement of these bases. The conclusion, then, is unavoidable....when those bases mutate, the species are changed....all that is then required is sufficient time to elapse for those changes to persist and accumulate....