Ok, so in the same train of thought, genetic similarities don't automatically make two different populations related. It's your reasoning.
And believe it or not, I'd actually agree with that. By virtue of life on Earth having 4 base DNA, about 25% of the similarity between two randomly selected, equal length sequences can be explained as pure chance. Can, not automatically is.
Of course, all eukaryotes are far more genetically similar to each other than that, breaking the limit of similarity that can be explained as pure chance.
And btw, our genes are exactly the same, its simply the arrangement of those genetic markers that make someone different. My T, A, G and C is the same as your T, A, G and C, they are simply in a different arrangement.....
That literally describes every living organism on this planet, as well as DNA viruses.
Your argument has no substance and misleads people....
Nah, you clearly made some assumptions about my reasoning at the start that weren't true. I am 100% certain you did not expect me to agree with your first two sentences. Similarity that indicates shared ancestry is different from random chance similarity.
Not in your intellectually secluded world where you ignore that geneticists use viruses to target specific genes for gene therapy. Hmm, if they were randomly attacking cells and their genetic content, why that just wouldn't work, now would it??????
Yes, they do target specific genes, and they do so with the intent of instigating a specific type of genetic change. All possible genetic changes are not equally probable or even necessarily possible for that type of process, and the same goes for the people that were breeding barley. They wanted specific types of changes, and made efforts to get them and avoid others. Their study never was intended to see how many different traits they could get, and even if it was, I explained to you that mutagenic substances do not instigate all sorts of mutations with equal probability, making attempting to determine some limit of variation via inducing mutation that way inherently flawed.
There is no common ancestor at all, let alone the "last" one. That's why they are every last one missing for every single evolutionary tree. And I do mean EVERY SINGLE TREE.
Only in the sense that, since we can't perform genetic tests, it is impossible to tell if a fossil belongs to a species that was the last common ancestor between two modern or extinct groups. It is a consequence of the fact DNA doesn't last very long, no more and no less. It is entirely possible that we have found many such species in the fossil record and simply don't recognize them as such.
Read the Grants papers, then come back and tell me that again....
I am assuming you are referring to Ragnar Granit from the original paper you posted, because otherwise, said last name is too common for me to figure out what specific paper you could be referencing. The man died in 1991, long before the human genome was sequenced. His citation is a book not published by a scientific journal in which he explores his personal views on the origin of the universe and his theology. He's not even well known for that book, and the bulk of his scientific work revolves around the function of the human eye in terms of physiology and chemistry. He has nothing to do with genetics or plant/animal breeding, so I don't view his citation as particularly relevant.
The fact that you seem to have thought that the citation was a paper, not a book, says a lot about how much reading you have been doing.
If you are referring to Peter R. Grant, which I hope for your sake is not the case, you've never read any of his work directly, I can tell you that much. He's the evolutionary biologist that demonstrated that natural selection can be observed to make significant changes to populations within a human lifetime. He works with birds, not plants, and is not cited by the original paper you presented. He also has 0 papers supporting the "law of recurrent variation" and as far as I can tell doesn't even have papers that use that phrase. Most of the relevant work of his is also extremely outdated, with most of it being from the late 1980s and the early 1990s.
in other words you look for any excuse to justify in your own mind why you can ignore the outcome of almost 40 years of actual plant and animal husbandry, because the results don't fit your viewpoint. I understand....
-_- they literally were directing the mutations to force specific traits to appear, exactly why should I view such an experiment as giving any insight as to the amount of mutations these plants could potentially experience?
Even if you showed how many different ways a single mutation could change a specific gene, it wouldn't give you any insight as to how further mutations would impact physiology. And that ancient study didn't even accomplish that. As far as 40 years goes, even if any of those individual experiments lasted that long (they didn't) and they didn't use mutagenic substances which inevitably result in specific types of mutations appearing more frequently, that wouldn't be a sufficient amount of time to determine how many possible ways a genome can mutate. I'd even go as far as to say that unless the genome of the organism in question is very short, it'd be impossible to witness all single base pair mutations even with endless clones of animals to inbreed and centuries to observe it in.
I mean, consider this sequence of just 5 different bases:
AATCG
How many ways do you think I can change that sequence when the only difference amounts to just 1 base pair, either being swapped, added, or deleted? Well, there should be 3 different ones for each base being swapped for another, such as ATTCG, so 15 of those. With additions, for each single base addition of a particular base there are 6 different places they can go, such as AAATCG, so 24 of those. There are 5 different ways single base deletions could go, such as ATCG.
That means a sequence of just 5 bases can change in 44 different ways with just a single base mutation. I can't even fathom the number of ways an organism with 1 million base pairs, which is significantly shorter than any known eukaryotic genome, could change with just 1 base pair.
And that's not even accounting for the larger mutations.
Laughable coming from someone that seemed focused on the authors credentials......
The credentials were but a small part of my criticisms, and the only reason my response to your post brought them up so much is because YOUR POST focused so heavily on the matter. You didn't even try to challenge my most important criticisms, the fact that the paper didn't go through a proper peer review process (as indicated by the publisher) and that it makes claims about the alleles of a species that wasn't sequenced until long after the paper was published.
And have to spend all that money all over again re-educating yourself in another field?
-_- why would disproving a theory, even one as big as evolution, require a person to quit their biology career? It's not like disproving the theory of evolution is the same thing as disproving all of biology.
Loose the respect of your peers, etc? Not a chance and we both know it. Just like with Ptolomy, it took a revolution to change the current system of belief.
Why would a person that legitimately disproved a theory that big lose the respect of their peers? It would be a necessary, revolutionary development for the field of biology, just like Miasma theory of disease being replaced with Germ theory of disease was. I think you significantly overestimate the negative impacts of disproving theories.
It's you that seems to want to ignore the outcome of over 40 years of actual mutation experiment with plants and animals because you don't like the conclusion brought together fro disparage sources.
It's not 40 years of mutation experiment to determine how much one can change cattle or plants. For example, the barley experiments lasted about 5 years, and again, they were trying to influence the sorts of mutations they got. A lot of the cultivars they developed this way were useful, and many persist to this day, so that experiment wasn't even a failure like the paper you linked stated it was.
So says those that keep ignoring over 100 breeds of dogs from one wolf stock......
1. That is an incorrect assessment of dog evolution. Dogs are derived from at least two different populations of the same wolf species, one which lived in the East and one which lived in the West.
2. I am not ignoring them, but you like to ignore my statement that I contend that all modern dogs are not the same species. Demonstrate to me a cross between a female chihuahua and a male Great Dane. Do it. Prove me wrong when I say that a female chihuahua can't take the puppies to term if the father is a Great Dane.
3. Need I post the pictures of the first generation of my Triops versus the latest generation of my Triops? I got tails longer than any possible F1 generation relative these Triops had. In a species that is entirely asexual and thus cannot be crossed with any other breeds or species. Consider your continuous assertion that new traits only arise with hybridization refuted by me personally.
I like how you chose to ignore every one of those linked too... which discussed the subject. You had your pick...... Yet chose to ignore them all because it leads to facts you don't want to hear because they'll damage your belief system....
What are you talking about? Did you edit your previous post to have links it didn't have before? Or are you treating the google search as a valid link? Very funny, in what universe do we live in? Last I checked, my time was limited, yet pages of garbage on Google were quite numerous. If you want me to investigate specific papers, name them. It is your job to provide sufficient evidence for your own position, not tell me to look for it for you. Such is the nature of a debate.
But hey, the least I could do is look through the first 3 pages of Google search results. At least 85% of those pages are either the paper you originally linked or references to it or the author of it, criticisms of it, and on the last page there are two valid papers published in actual scientific journals, neither of which have subject matter that goes in line with the original paper you posted.
-_- this is why you have to link specific sources and not ask me to Google search. I sincerely have to say that it seems Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig is the only person even trying to give the illusion of scientifically demonstrating his own law of recurrent variation and that anything that brings it up either does so as a result of him being a minor citation or it being a paper he's directly involved with.
