- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,351
- 52,698
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
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.
No.Do you have anything useful to contribute to the thread?
Any insights into phylogenetics? Any knowledge you wish to impart on the applicability of the study of evolutionary relationships of organism?
Give me one example of a gene being declared lost without any evidence that it was once present.
And the robot depends on how robotic we're talking. Metal can't forge itself into wires and cogs naturally. But if it was more like an animal with large inorganic components, I could see that being natural. Our tooth enamel is only like 3% organic material.
how? they just dont find those genes. so they claiming for gene deletions. i can give many more examples like this one:That is the opposite of answering the question.
No, it is not. It is not an explanation at all. You need to explain how the design got from the mind of the designer into the robot.so a robot need a designer isnt a good explanation to how the robot appeared?
here:
Nonrandom Gene Loss from the Drosophila miranda Neo-Y Chromosome | Genome Biology and Evolution | Oxford Academic
"The neo-Y contains 1,805 putative functional and 1,374 nonfunctional genes, the latter of which include genes that were either deleted from the neo-Y or contain internal stop codons and/or frameshift mutations"
so an organic robot or a watch doesnt need a designer then? also: proteins also cant forge itself into an organism as far as we know (its need a lots of proteins to do that). so its not so different from a metal robot.
They said that non-functional genes were found, including deleted genes. They know of those genes because of evidence that they existed. They are not saying that those genes should be there in theory but aren't.
And you are correct, an organic robot or watch does not need a designer if it is organic enough.
yes they are. see this for instance:
https://www.researchgate.net/public...zoan_Gene_Repertoire_and_Genomic_Organization
"We found 1292 eumetazoan gene families that had detect-
able descendants in anemone and at least two of
the three vertebrates, but that appeared to be
absent in both fruit fly and soil nematode. This
indicates that they were either lost or highly
diverged in both of these model protostomes,
extending the list of such genes found in EST
studies"
so they just dont find those genes and claiming for gene loss or a different selection pressure.
i think its an hard claim. and hards claims need hard evidences. i dont think we have hard evidence that a self replicating robot can evolve by a natural process. do you?
They didn't look for indicators of the genes being lost, nor said that they were lost. They noticed that the genes were absent and gave two idea as to why that may be, one of which is loss.
if they absent from the genome then what more do you need? so we have a case where they dont find any evidence for gene loss and they still claiming for gene loss only because their belief in evolution. this is not science.
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?