Hmm, still no genetic formula for ANY of the organisms we are told 'evolved' over millions of years. None for man from the so-called common ancestor. None for the divergance of vertebrates from invertebrates. And none from one-celled organisms to any kind of animal or plant.
My counterparts keep feigning ignorance of my challenge saying, "what exactly is he asking for?" pretending that I did not go to great lengths to illustrate and define exactly what I was saying about a half dozen or more times. The formulas for the crossing of well known species within the same family were given repeatedly and they stupifyingly responded with, 'Huh? What he's asking for proves he doesn't know what he's talking about!"
Really? Then why do other evolutionists tell us:
Quote: "In biology, a
substitution model describes the process from which a sequence of characters changes into another set of traits. For example, in
cladistics, each position in the sequence might correspond to a property of a
species which can either be present or absent. The
alphabet could then consist of "0" for absence and "1" for presence. Then the sequence 00110 could mean, for example, that a species does not have feathers or lay eggs, does have fur, is warm-blooded, and cannot breathe underwater. Another sequence 11010 would mean that a species has feathers, lays eggs, does not have fur, is warm-blooded, and cannot breathe underwater. In
phylogenetics, sequences are often obtained by firstly obtaining a
nucleotide or
protein sequence alignment, and then taking the
bases or
amino acids at corresponding positions in the alignment as the characters. Sequences achieved by this might look like AGCGGAGCTTA and GCCGTAGACGC.
Substitution models are used for a number of things:
- Constructing evolutionary trees in phylogenetics or cladistics."
So they tell us they've got the means to come up with the classifications but where are those formulas? Why don't they publish the formula that explains mans (homo) divergance from the 'common ancestor' (hominini?). We never see that...even though they admit they have the means and the ability to obtain it. Could it be because they do not know what that 'common ancestor' actually was and they cannot derive information for an organism that did not exist?
The people at the U. of Wisconsin & USC combined in an effort in this regard and published their work entitled:
Evidence from Nuclear Sequences That Invariable Sites
Should Be Considered when Sequence
Divergence Is Calculated
This was published under the category: genetic formula for man's divergence from a common ancestor
So it's right on target with our subject.
They concluded:
The estimation of the number of nucleotide substitutions is of major concern to
molecular evolutionary biologists, since any calculation of the rates of change of DNA
sequence requires an estimate of sequence divergence. The most popular method
estimating this number is Jukes and Cantor’s ( 1969 ), which depends on the assumption
that nucleotide substitutions occur at random among the four nucleotides and that
the substitution rate is the same for all nucleotide positions. However, it has been
shown that actual sequences do not evolve according to these two assumptions.
Transition differences are more frequent than transversion differences in both
mitochondrial sequences (Brown et al. 1982; Brown and Simpson 1982; Aquadro and Greenberg 1983) and nuclear sequences (Van Ooyen et al. 1979; Fitch 1980; Gojobori et al.19826).
The higher frequency of transitions is contrary to what one would expect if
a nucleotide were supplanted by each of its three alternatives at equal rates.
I want you to notice that the expectations of these Darwinist biologists and the results they got were two different things. So they thought that observation of certain point mutations would bring about the assumed evolutionary predictions but got just the opposite.
(Note: for the reader to know) - a transition is a point mutation that changes a purine nucleotide to another purine (A ↔G ) or a pyrimidine nucleotide to another pyrimidine (C ↔T) nucleotide. A transversion exchanges a purine for a pyrimidine or a pyrimidine for a purine in the process of what is known as a point mutation.
Hmm, the conclusions reported in the pro-evolution Oxford Journal again. Now I KNOW the Darwinians here won't believe it!
But should their results be surprising in light of what we have already learned on this matter?
Quote: Studies in the fly Drosophila melanogaster suggest that if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, this will probably be harmful, with about 70 percent of these mutations having damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial. (Wikipedia).
Our resident PhD just swept these conclusions aside and stubbornly maintained that there are enough beneficial mutations in the DNA of living organisms to justify their 'evolution' from one type of organism to another. His evidence? Zero. Extinctions are far out-distancing the supposed 'evolved' organisms astronomically.
I didn't say that an invertebrate cannot develop into a vertebrate, I've even said what types of invertebrates develop into vertebrates, I have also said that vertebrates cannot develop into invertebrates. The reasons for this is a misunderstanding of cladistics and what an invertebrate is (roughly defined it is anything outside of the clade vertebrata)
