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.
There was a working link to the site. That is the same as giving credit to the author.
Therefore you must tell us what is required for this to have occurred, that according to you cannot have occurred. Go ahead.
Nope, since it can have a new function by definition it is a new gene. That is the very definition of a new gene.
You are trying to define new genes out of existence.
A gene is the molecular unit of heredity of a living organism.
Oh what the heck:
Gene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Therefore if a gene has a new use, it is a new heredity unit, it is a new gene.
Different heredity unit different gene, can you understand this extremely simple concept?
Yet you never read it.
"Mutations propagated to the next generation lead to variations within a species' population. Variants of a single gene are known as alleles, and differences in alleles may give rise to differences in traits. Although it is rare for the variants in a single gene to have clearly distinguishable phenotypic effects, certain well-defined traits are in fact controlled by single genetic loci."
Variations, not new genetic material. Can you understand that extremely simple concept? So no genetic experiment has ever shown new genes can arise where none existed before, they are merely variation of what already existed. And therefore your "hypothesis" that new genes can be formed through mutations has not once been observed. Therefore there is no basis to claim evolution from simple compounds to complex lifeforms.
We can deduce that what you have observed in the genetic tests and fossil record is mere variation of the same species population.
The alleles merely become dominate or recessive, but already existed.
Allele - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Huh? The species' genome now has a stretch of sequence that did not exist anywhere. What else could "new material" look like in a genome? You've been presented with cases of exactly what you're asking for, and your only response is to say, "Is not!". Not exactly a solid scientific argument.if a gene is modified after copying, doesn't mean it's "new material" that is begging the question as to what this material entails (newness).
Huh? The species' genome now has a stretch of sequence that did not exist anywhere. What else could "new material" look like in a genome? You've been presented with cases of exactly what you're asking for, and your only response is to say, "Is not!". Not exactly a solid scientific argument.
you didn't violate internet rules, but forum rules:
any copywrite material unless it states what percentage is against the rules:
you quoted 4964 words out of 9214 words (excluding references-11019 including references)
according to: Word Counter
that is 53% and 45% respectively)
which is half of the text.
that is over double of what you are supposed to quote, under copywrite rules of this forum.
If talk origins did not copywrite it, then you may have more slack.
Secondly, in the second paragraph of copywrite rules on talk origins it mentions to give credit to the author. You did not. So thats one maybe two rules broken.
OK, I'll google oneAnd you need a definition of new material that doesn't beg the question!
there was no addition of genetic material.
what is required is a miracle, because that simply didn't happen.
One More Time (it is really had to get straight answers out of you guys):::
Here are the differences between human and chimp genomes in a nutshell:
35 million single nucleotide differences and ∼90 Mb of insertions and deletions.
Comparing the human and chimpanzee genomes: Searching for needles in a haystack
According to you, none of this is added "new information." Therefore, the evolution of chimps and humans from a common ancestor (hypothetical if you like) did not require any "new information." Do You Agree?
One More Time (it is really had to get straight answers out of you guys):::
Here are the differences between human and chimp genomes in a nutshell:
35 million single nucleotide differences and ∼90 Mb of insertions and deletions.
Comparing the human and chimpanzee genomes: Searching for needles in a haystack
According to you, none of this is added "new information." Therefore, the evolution of chimps and humans from a common ancestor (hypothetical if you like) did not require any "new information." Do You Agree?
[serious];64718744 said:OK, I'll google one
Genetic material: The genetic material of a cell or an organism refers to those materials found in the nucleus, mitochondria and cytoplasm, which play a fundamental role in determining the structure and nature of cell substances, and capable of self-propagating and variation.
Genetic material - definition from Biology-Online.org
If you want to propose an alternate definition, please do so. Try not to define it out of existence this time though.
No, chimps are chimps, humans are humans, there is no link between them except for the fact that almost all life on this planet shares some similarities. because all are composed of the same material, protons, electrons and neutrons. There is no difference between the iron molecules in your body and that of rock. Are rocks our ancestors? That would be closer since we came from the dust of the earth, to which science agrees since they claim life formed from non-life.
Chimp genomes have never been observed to vary outside the chimp species. Human genomes have never been observed to vary outside the human genome. Rose genes have never been observed to vary outside the rose gene.
We have thousands of varieties of rose, but they are all rose, never become anything other than rose, with very few differences in their genome. Yet you claim 35 million is a small number, and this does not count the 98% of the genome we still do not understand so have labeled junk, which we are finding out is not the junk we thought it was.
So after you have studied that other 98% so your ideas are not based upon mere fragments, then we can discuss the hypothetical. But why discuss the hypothetical when there is insufficient knowledge to base anything on? A knowledge of less than 2% of the gene is certainly insufficient knowledge. but evolutionists do like to base entire theories on mere fragments. Much easier to state things as fact without the chance of being shown wrong when you have no facts to go by except a mere <2%. So at most as it stands right now, you have a <2% chance of being correct, except all tests done with that <2% show mere variation, and never anything new. So your odds just dropped to <.01%
many say we have similiar chromosomes to a monkey,
but we also have similiar to a pig.
lol
so you don't believe that genetic "information" is genetic code thats fine.
prove it,
or don't talk about it. (please)
actually it would have hypothetically required new information. Because we are not monkeys, there would have to have been additional bits of data added to the code for assembly of the new mechanisms. But that is hypothetical, again it would be miraculous for this to happen. And it takes faith to believe in it. Just like any religious concept.
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?