Win a debate against evolution every time.

[mark kennedy]

lol that's quite interesting. Talk about an extreme way to confuse someone XD

It's not so bad once you learn the terminology.

 

[Metal Minister]

Ah yes, good ol' Lamarkism...a darwinian's best friend...the giraffe got a long neck to reach higher branches...we stood upright to see over tall grass...( though honestly, why would we have left the safety of the trees? @__@)

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[samaus12345]

jinx, my earlier post described the process by which a gene duplication first makes a copy (which is unneeded at the time), and later mutations change that "extra" copy to do something new. The new, changed gene's bases no longer have their original sequence. Did you read that description, and do you see now how it supplies something different than was originally there?

Papias. 'Evolution' depends on people reading words like you just typed to me above, and just believing them, again at any time please back up a single statement with free full peer reviewed literature that you have at least skimmed and get the general overview.


Khaos theory. ' Evolution' means -change in allele frequency over time, change over time,mutations,variation, selection, speciation,adaptation, AND the myth that we share a common ancestor with a prokaryotic cell ~3.5 billion years ago, i wont respond anymore UNLESS you back up each asserted fact with a direct link to free peer reviewed genetic literature.

On very very first glances (like for a nanosecond) gene duplication might appear to be a way you get a whole chunk of new bases for free. This (again for a nanosecond) sounds good for neodarwinian myth (actually it sounds good for a lot longer to evolutionary biologists, like Susumu Ohno). Think about it PLEEEASSSEEE before posting..... if i take the entire alphabet and copy it.... is it the same sequence? Yes. I know they say "the second copy is free from selective pressure and free to accumulate mutations", as if to say a prokaryote can evolve 20,000 or something new functional proteins this way. This is a tenet of neodarwinism, not the bible, so why someone wants to represent it i dont know?.... they need a way (neodarwinists) that sounds plausible to humour themsleves that it is possible to evolve from a prokaryote to a person, and again on first nano-second thought this is it. Got to NCBI type in 'neofunctionalization', skim a literature then post it PLEEASSSEE no r e t a r d e d blogs, videos, n00bs opinions etc.

Heres your antibiotic resistance 'evolution'

http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j8_1/j8_1_5-6.pdf

Also have both of you seen Dawkins fail to address information when asked on youtube?

Yes MM lamarckism is utterly R E T A R D E D lol as if to say if i poke out both my eyes my kid will be born without eyes haha

 

[samaus12345]

"As stated above, the first event awaiting a duplicated gene is silencing. The best studied mechanism of silencing is through methylation of cytosine bases in CG islands around promoters"

"Realizing the impossibility of neofunctionalization, Lynch and Conery argued that gene duplication only passively contributes to the generation of biodiversity by building up reproductive barriers as duplicates are silenced stochastically.6 In other words, gene duplication does not produce new genes because silencing and subsequent degradation of duplicated genes cannot provide new information. "

Do new functions arise by gene duplication?

Lee Spetner

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Spetner

We see then that the mutation reduces the specificity of the ribosome protein and that means a loss of genetic information. ... Rather than saying the bacterium gained resistance to the antibiotic, it is more correct to say that is lost sensitivity to it. ... All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it.
—Lee Spetner, Not by Chance, Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution

 

[Papias]

jinx wrote:

Papias. 'Evolution' depends on people reading words like you just typed to me above, and just believing them,

That sounds like an unsupported statement.

again at any time please back up a single statement with free full peer reviewed literature that you have at least skimmed and get the general overview.

Did I not already do that, on this thread for the very issue of new abilities by gene duplication and mutation we are discussing? I can look back and find that post if you like......

Notice that the item you posted is from a non-peer reviewed, old earth creationist site.


jinx, I don't understand your use of a quote from Spetner. Spetner has no biology related degrees, so whatever he says is irrelevant. Plus, he's a Larmarkian, which we both agree is incorrect. Since it would seem that you don't agree with him, why do you quote him?

(similarly, MM - just an FYI - modern biology rejects Larmarkian evolution, so I'm not sure why you referred to it as "Darwin's best friend". Much of Darwin's work was to refute Larmarkian evolution.).


*****************************************

mark wrote:

That's right Papias, the three fold expansion of the human brain would have started about 2 million years ago with all of the supposed human ancestors having a cranial capacity of under 600cc on average until the advent of Homo erectus.

It never ceases to amaze me how you can be so sketchy in your proofs yet pontificate corrections of errors that aren't errors.

mark, you cut out the part of your own post where you said "there are no transitionals". My point was that you had yourself claimed there were no transitionals - it wasn't something I read into your posts.

As outsiders to the fields, all of the data is not easily available you and I. That's why I suggested taking a college course on it if you are interested in having a complete data set to work with.

I would suggest you take a course in logic because you are obsessed with fallacious logic.

Is that a constructive statement for a discussion?

You mean remove the data. And how is the remark above rude?​

All of your remarks are rude, that's what you do here.

​

So if I say "have a nice day", that's rude?

OK, mark, can you supply a reference that 700 and 850 are within the normal human range? They have to be common enough that finding one would be statistically likely. Here is a reference that puts it at around 950:

Stop, check the dates and we can talk about this again.

Why are the dates relevant? The question was whether or not your claim that 700 and 850 are within the normal range is correct (which my references I posted showed was incorrect). That can be evaluated regardless of when they skulls are from. (they are both from a little under 2 million years, I think).
​

Anything from about 700 cc is within human range

second time asking for a reference in support of this.......

​

Papias

 

[mark kennedy]

jinx wrote:

All this time on the boards and you still can't do a block quote.

That sounds like an unsupported statement.

Which is itself an unsupported statement.

Did I not already do that, on this thread for the very issue of new abilities by gene duplication and mutation we are discussing? I can look back and find that post if you like......

It won't improve your argument if that's what you are thinking.

Notice that the item you posted is from a non-peer reviewed, old earth creationist site.

Yea, so....

jinx, I don't understand your use of a quote from Spetner. Spetner has no biology related degrees, so whatever he says is irrelevant. Plus, he's a Larmarkian, which we both agree is incorrect. Since it would seem that you don't agree with him, why do you quote him?

So being a Darwinian makes you superior to Speter and Larmark?

(similarly, MM - just an FYI - modern biology rejects Larmarkian evolution, so I'm not sure why you referred to it as "Darwin's best friend". Much of Darwin's work was to refute Larmarkian evolution.).

Nonsense.

mark, you cut out the part of your own post where you said "there are no transitionals". My point was that you had yourself claimed there were no transitionals - it wasn't something I read into your posts.

I never said that and I never said apes evolved from humans. Your habitual twisting of words makes your posts mindlessly simple to refute.

Is that a constructive statement for a discussion?

When have you ever had a discussion with a creationist that was constructive?

So if I say "have a nice day", that's rude?

No, if you say 'Have a nice day' to someone who is being rude you are shinning them on.

Why are the dates relevant? The question was whether or not your claim that 700 and 850 are within the normal range is correct (which my references I posted showed was incorrect). That can be evaluated regardless of when they skulls are from. (they are both from a little under 2 million years, I think).

Yes, they are both under 2 million years old, you finally caught on. Our supposed ancestors from 2 mya would have had cranial capacities only slightly bigger then a modern chimpanzee. In fact, the Taung Child and Lucy would have been a bit small in that regard. In all this time none of the skulls being passed off as human can be chimpanzee ancestors even though, several of them clearly are. But I digress.

The premise of my long held view is that in order for us to have evolved from apes the baseline, cranial capacity would have had to be under 600 cc just 2 mya. There is neither the time nor the means for the human brain to have evolved from that of apes in such a space of time but they don't have that much time to work with. Homo erectus shows up on the scene about 1.9 mya, fully anatomically human with the exception of a cranial capacity just slightly smaller, about 900cc had he lived to full maturity. That means, in case you missed it that the cranial capacity from Homo habilis to Homo erectus would have nearly doubled, over night, without precursors. The Homo ergaster skulls that we almost discussed are right around 700cc and 800cc, something like that and it's readily attributed to natural variance and sever limits to the reconstruction of the skulls.

Papias I know you are never going to be civil in these discussions but do you have to make it so easy to shoot down your arguments? At least argue against something substantive with something relevant and would you kindly give up these pointless personal attacks, they betray an enormous knowledge deficit you are crippled with.

second time asking for a reference in support of this.......

Maybe he should have used a sketchy scattergram from a propaganda site ten or twenty times.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

We see then that the mutation reduces the specificity of the ribosome protein and that means a loss of genetic information. ... Rather than saying the bacterium gained resistance to the antibiotic, it is more correct to say that is lost sensitivity to it. ... All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it.
—Lee Spetner, Not by Chance, Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution

The genetics research into the effects of mutations clearly indicate exactly that. Darwinians have never come to terms with the deleterious effects of mutations and yet accuse anyone who disagrees with then of ignorance.

They are bitterly beaten down in the scientific community and always have been. They pretend to have all of modern science backing them but the truth is that they are shallow in their treatment of mutations.

There isn't a dimes worth of evidence that random mutations are a basis for adaptations on an evolutionary level. Darwinians know this and so does Papias.

 

[Metal Minister]

(similarly, MM - just an FYI - modern biology rejects Larmarkian evolution, so I'm not sure why you referred to it as "Darwin's best friend". Much of Darwin's work was to refute Larmarkian evolution.).

*****************************************

Sorry Papias, but Darwin didn't refute Lamarckism.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism#section_1

Darwin's Origin of Species proposed natural selection as the main mechanism for development of species, but did not rule out a variant of Lamarckism as a supplementary mechanism. [1] Darwin called his Lamarckian hypothesis Pangenesis, and explained it in the final chapter of his book Variation in Plants and Animals under Domestication, after describing numerous examples to demonstrate what he considered to be the inheritance of acquired characteristics.

And I've seen in numerous posts on this forum and from some of the scientific articles posted that many times they revert to a type of Lamarckism to explain why an animal would change when mutations just don't make any sense.

http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=12546

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[mark kennedy]

Sorry Papias, but Darwin didn't refute

May God Richly Bless You! MM

Darwin did argue against a version of creationism called catastropheism, the idea that the earth had been created, destroyed and replenished many times. That's probably what Darwin was talking about in On the Origin of Species.

Papias makes general references into big deals, it's part of his charm.

 

[Metal Minister]

Darwin did argue against a version of creationism called catastropheism, the idea that the earth had been created, destroyed and replenished many times. That's probably what Darwin was talking about in On the Origin of Species.

Papias makes general references into big deals, it's part of his charm.

Yeah, I accidently hit the post button...the rest is up now. Sorry.

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[samaus12345]

Did I not already do that, on this thread for the very issue of new abilities by gene duplication and mutation we are discussing? I can look back and find that post if you like......

Ok but if you skim it first you might see where they 'infer' based on their apriori world view (which isnt mine) a gene duplication event leading to 'neofunctionalization' x million years ago. I dont have faith in this ahahah i can either have faith in that, or faith in God.

Notice that the item you posted is from a non-peer reviewed, old earth creationist site.

Creation.com are not OEC, they write material refuting infinite attacks on genesis by both atheists and theists.

jinx, I don't understand your use of a quote from Spetner. Spetner has no biology related degrees, so whatever he says is irrelevant. Plus, he's a Larmarkian, which we both agree is incorrect. Since it would seem that you don't agree with him, why do you quote him?

HE IS A BIOPHYSICIST MATE. NO HE ISNT A LAMARCKISM.


From a frog to a prince Lee Spetner Don Batten and everyones *favourite* atheist Dawkins

From a frog to a prince part 1 - YouTube


From a frog to a prince part 2 - YouTube


From a frog to a prince part 3 - YouTube

 

[Papias]

jinx wrote:

Did I not already do that, on this thread for the very issue of new abilities by gene duplication and mutation we are discussing? I can look back and find that post if you like......

Ok but if you skim it first you might see where they 'infer' based on their apriori world view (which isnt mine) a gene duplication event leading to 'neofunctionalization' x million years ago. I dont have faith in this ahahah i can either have faith in that, or faith in God.

That depends on the case - some, like the nylonase, etc, are more recent. Plus, a duplicated gene is easy to detect becausethe bases are the same, regardless of when it happened. It can be empirically seen, today, that there are two copies, whether that happened in the distant or more recent past. In other words, the timing is not important to the mechanism anyway.



​

Notice that the item you posted is from a non-peer reviewed, old earth creationist site.

Creation.com are not OEC, they write material refuting infinite attacks on genesis by both atheists and theists.

Thanks for the correction, I must have confused it with another site. So it is from a non-peer reviewed, young earth creationist site.
​

jinx, I don't understand your use of a quote from Spetner. Spetner has no biology related degrees, so whatever he says is irrelevant. Plus, he's a Larmarkian, which we both agree is incorrect. Since it would seem that you don't agree with him, why do you quote him?

HE IS A BIOPHYSICIST MATE.

Can you post evidence that he has a biology related degree (support your claim)? I'm going from his life story, here:


Bio

​

NO HE ISNT A LAMARCKISM.

It seems like his ideas are similar to neo-larmarckianism. Here is an example:
The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design - Ronald L. Numbers - Google Books

**********************************************

Sorry Papias, but Darwin didn't refute Lamarckism.

Lamarckism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Darwin's Origin of Species proposed natural selection as the main mechanism for development of species, but did not rule out a variant of Lamarckism as a supplementary mechanism. [1] Darwin called his Lamarckian hypothesis Pangenesis, and explained it in the final chapter of his book Variation in Plants and Animals under Domestication, after describing numerous examples to demonstrate what he considered to be the inheritance of acquired characteristics.

Oh, yes, that's true. Specifically, that shows that Darwin was still a small bit larmarckian, arguing against a mostly Larmarckian community in his day. So he argued against Larmarckianism (in much of the Origin of Species), while still maintaining a little himself. Maybe we agree on that now?

And I've seen in numerous posts on this forum and from some of the scientific articles posted that many times they revert to a type of Lamarckism to explain why an animal would change when mutations just don't make any sense.

http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item...pe=2&tid=12546

May God Richly Bless You! MM

Thanks for the relevant reference. Yes, some larmarckian ideas may play small roles in the real world. While that's very different from the full blown Larmarckianism of the early 1800s, those factors do appear to be real, in addition to regular evolution by mutation and natural selection.

Papias

 

[Papias]

mark wrote

That sounds like an unsupported statement.

Which is itself an unsupported statement.

No mark, it is supported by the fact that the original statement didn't have any support (and still doesn't).

​

mark, you cut out the part of your own post where you said "there are no transitionals". My point was that you had yourself claimed there were no transitionals - it wasn't something I read into your posts.
​

I never said that and I never said apes evolved from humans. Your habitual twisting of words makes your posts mindlessly simple to refute.

So you never said that there is no transitional? Here is your own words from post #42 on this thread:

mark wrote in post #42:

There is no transitional, the brain would have had to double in size, pretty much over night.

I never said apes evolved from humans.

I know. Remember, I agree that I may have misunderstood you, and kindly asked for better explanation of which hominids you are saying de-evolved into modern chimps. I think you at least included Homo habilis, maybe rudolfensis, etc?

When have you ever had a discussion with a creationist that was constructive?

I have had too many discussions with creationists that were constructive to count. A creationist and I had lunch together once a month for years discussing evolution, and I've had others as well, such as with MM. Creationists are people just like me - in fact, they are very often wonderful, faith filled Christians, just like many theistic evolution supporters.

​

No, if you say 'Have a nice day' to someone who is being rude you are shinning them on.

Well,...... go, and shin no more!
​

Why are the dates relevant? The question was whether or not your claim that 700 and 850 are within the normal range is correct (which my references I posted showed was incorrect). That can be evaluated regardless of when they skulls are from. (they are both from a little under 2 million years, I think).

Yes, they are both under 2 million years old, you finally caught on. Our supposed ancestors from 2 mya would have had cranial capacities only slightly bigger then a modern chimpanzee. In fact, the Taung Child and Lucy would have been a bit small in that regard. In all this time none of the skulls being passed off as human can be chimpanzee ancestors even though, several of them clearly are.
​

Um, "none can be, but clearly are."? That sounds like you are contradicting yourself. Plus, the two skulls we are discussing are 700 and 850, well outside the normal chimp range of 280-500. Yes, our ancestors from the time of Lucy (about 3 mya) had brain sizes within the chimp range (lucy at about 400, higher than chimp average). It all fits well with the gradual increase in brain capacity from chimp-like lucy to us.

There is neither the time nor the means for the human brain to have evolved from that of apes in such a space of time but they don't have that much time to work with.

You state that as an unsupported statement, when I've shown that 2 million years is plenty of time at even a slow mutation rate (well below that observed today) - remember our use of the calculator?

Homo erectus shows up on the scene about 1.9 mya, fully anatomically human with the exception of a cranial capacity just slightly smaller, about 900cc had he lived to full maturity.

900 is well below the human average of around 1330, not "slightly smaller". Early Homo erectus had a cranial capacity of about 850, as we saw, that's well outside the normal human range. As we've seen many times, we have the gradual increase in cranial capacity from chimps to humans shown in the fossil record, no jumps needed.

That means, in case you missed it that the cranial capacity from Homo habilis to Homo erectus would have nearly doubled, over night, without precursors. The Homo ergaster skulls that we almost discussed are right around 700cc and 800cc, something like that and it's readily attributed to natural variance and sever limits to the reconstruction of the skulls.

Except that you are ignoring some of the skulls to do so. Later homo habilis is larger than average, and early Homo erectus is smaller than average for Homo erectus - again giving us the gradual increase in brain size, with nothing happening "over night". Your supposed "gap" is only a product of your use of only some of the data.

Papias I know you are never going to be civil in these discussions but do you have to make it so easy to shoot down your arguments? At least argue against something substantive with something relevant and would you kindly give up these pointless personal attacks, they betray an enormous knowledge deficit you are crippled with.

I apologize if anything I've written can be seen as a personal attack against anyone (youself included). I will admit that I'm not as knowledgeable as the experts in the field of the human brain and it's evolution - that's why I don't contradict them.


So, you've claimed that 700 and 850 cc are within the normal human range for cranial capacity, and I've asked three times for some source for this bare assertion. Should I conclude now that you won't give it?

Papias

 

[samaus12345]

That depends on the case - some, like the nylonase, etc, are more recent. Plus, a duplicated gene is easy to detect becausethe bases are the same, regardless of when it happened. It can be empirically seen, today, that there are two copies, whether that happened in the distant or more recent past. In other words, the timing is not important to the mechanism anyway.

AT ANY TIME BACK UP A SINGLE STATEMENT WITH LITERATURE. Nylonase was on a plasmid in a prokaryote.

Don batten

The adaptation of bacteria to feeding on nylon waste

Lee Spetner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BIOPHYSICS

How many nucleic acids are there?

 

[KhaosTheory]

AT ANY TIME BACK UP A SINGLE STATEMENT WITH LITERATURE. Nylonase was on a plasmid in a prokaryote.

Don batten

The adaptation of bacteria to feeding on nylon waste

Lee Spetner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BIOPHYSICS

How many nucleic acids are there?

You are asking for literature and then in the same post you give us a link to a website that is never peer reviewed and is notorious for having false information along with a wiki link to a guy who wants to disprove evolution but isn't even a biologist?

 

[samaus12345]

I dont make claims like ", a duplicated gene is easy to detect becausethe bases are the same, regardless of when it happened. It can be empirically seen, today, that there are two copies, whether that happened in the distant or more recent past. In other words, the timing is not important to the mechanism anyway"

HE IS A BIOLOGY PHYSICIST HE PWNS BIOLOGY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY BIOCHEMISTRY AND THE PHYSICS OF ALL OF THE ABOVE

for having false information

Please im listening, with sources sigh.... i wont respond anymore........

 

[Papias]

jinx wrote:

That depends on the case - some, like the nylonase, etc, are more recent. Plus, a duplicated gene is easy to detect becausethe bases are the same, regardless of when it happened. It can be empirically seen, today, that there are two copies, whether that happened in the distant or more recent past. In other words, the timing is not important to the mechanism anyway.

AT ANY TIME BACK UP A SINGLE STATEMENT WITH LITERATURE.
​

First of all, I did, I listed a handful of gene duplication + additional mutation cases. Secondly, If you want more, I can supply that too. A good place to start is here: PLoS Biology: Gene Duplication: The Genomic Trade in Spare Parts , which discusses both the evolutionary importance of gene duplication, as well as the massive evidence for it, including direct observation of many gene duplications from one generation to another, as in Kozsul, et al, 2004. Note that is is from a credentialed, peer-reviewed source, with many expert geneticist contributors.

​

Nylonase was on a plasmid in a prokaryote.

Sure. Plasmids are DNA, and prokaryotes have much of their DNA in plasmids. That has no relevance.

Don batten

The adaptation of bacteria to feeding on nylon waste

From a non-peer reviewed, often found to to wrong, site, which ends it's page by asking you for money. By your own request for peer-reviewed sources, that site is irrelevant.

Lee Spetner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BIOPHYSICS

In my posts 125 & 132, I asked if he had a degree related to biology. I looked over your site, and could not find it. I must have missed it. Could you point out on that site what degree in a biology related field he has, when he got it, from where, etc?

Plus, do we now agree that his ideas have been seen as Larmarckian?

How many nucleic acids are there?

?? not sure why you are asking that, but there is DNA, RNA, and some artificial ones, I think - but I'm not an expert on that.

Papias

 

[KhaosTheory]

Are creationists denying that mutations in the gametes are inheritable?

If yes, then how do you explain why you look like your parents?

If no, then what's stopping full scale evolution from happening?

All evolution requires is two things: inheritable mutations and a process that allows one gene dominance (natural selection.)

If you have those two things then there's nothing stopping a dinosaur from turning to a bird or a fish turning into a mammal...

If you feel like this is an incorrect simplification of how biology works then please explain to me exactly why and where this process doesn't work?

 

[mark kennedy]

Pay attention Creationists, this is what Evolutionists don't want you to know about mutations.

Are creationists denying that mutations in the gametes are inheritable?

Are evolutionists denying that mutations are deleterious or neutral the vast majority of the time?

If yes, then how do you explain why you look like your parents?

Do you really think meiosis and mitosis are helpful in a discussion of mutations?

If no, then what's stopping full scale evolution from happening?

The deleterious effects of mutations, specifically those on highly conserved genes involved in the coding of vital organs like the brain.

All evolution requires is two things: inheritable mutations and a process that allows one gene dominance (natural selection.)

Drifting into Mendelian genetics I see and trying to blend it with Darwinian clutch phrases. Inheritable mutations are going to be deleterious when strong enough for selection to act the vast majority of the time. If you are talking about a mutation with a beneficial adapting a vital trait in a highly conserved gene it's not that simple.

If you have those two things then there's nothing stopping a dinosaur from turning to a bird or a fish turning into a mammal...

No, not if you have assumed exclusively naturalistic causes no matter what the evidence is, nothing except the deleterious effects of mutations and the complete absence of molecular mechanisms capable of such a major overhaul of the requisite genes.

If you feel like this is an incorrect simplification of how biology works then please explain to me exactly why and where this process doesn't work?

A mutation is a failure of DNA repair. In order for species to evolve adaptations there has to be a special trait developed by a molecular mechanism designed specifically for that purpose and there are a number of them. Mutations disrupt the natural function of the genes and really amount to nothing more then chemical change that usually happens during replication.

Here is an example of

A missense mutations With a missense mutation, the new nucleotide alters the codon so as to produce an altered amino acid in the protein product.

Sickle Cell

Nonsense mutations With a nonsense mutation, the new nucleotide changes a codon that specified an amino acid to one of the STOP codons (TAA, TAG, or TGA). Therefore, translation of the messenger RNA transcribed from this mutant gene will stop prematurely. The earlier in the gene that this occurs, the more truncated the protein product and the more likely that it will be unable to function.

Over 1,000 mutations associated with Cystic Fibrosis

Extra base pairs may be added (insertions) or removed (deletions) from the DNA of a gene. The number can range from one to thousands. Collectively, these mutations are called indels.

Indels (insertions/deletions)

Fragile X Syndrome Several disorders in humans are caused by the inheritance of genes that have undergone insertions of a string of 3 or 4 nucleotides repeated over and over. A locus on the human X chromosome contains such a stretch of nucleotides in which the triplet CGG is repeated (CGGCGGCGGCGG, etc.).

FragileX

Mutations​

There are many more and as you continue to pontificate about the beneficial effects of mutations you are going to learn about them when you do.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[samaus12345]

PLoS Biology: Gene Duplication: The Genomic Trade in Spare Parts

(quote 'mine')

"The primary evidence that duplication has played a vital role in the evolution of new gene functions is the widespread existence of gene families."

"Whole genome sequences of closely related organisms have allowed us to identify changes in the gene complements of species over relatively short evolutionary distances."

"Recent evidence suggests that the explosion of segmental duplications in recent primate evolution has been caused in part by the rapid proliferation of Alu elements about 40 MYA."

There apriori axiom is plants animals and man came from a fish ~3.5 billion years ago. They class proteins and genes into 'families' and then 'infer' based on their apriori axiom 'neofunctionaliztion' events.

If someone wants to trust people who believe we came from fish ~3.5 billion years ago ok. I trust bible believers ie creation.com.

I cant find a site on him either, he is a biological physicist. His book "Not by chance" analyzes the mutations that neodarwinism worships and

"We see then that the mutation reduces the specificity of the ribosome protein and that means a loss of genetic information. ... Rather than saying the bacterium gained resistance to the antibiotic, it is more correct to say that is lost sensitivity to it. ... All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it."

He is a YEC. I dont know where it says his ideas are lamarckism.

A Scientific Defense of a Creationist Position on Evolution

Khaos theory

Which definition of 'evolution'? If you mean the myth that mutations add something new please see that Dawkins Vid on youtube "Richard Dawkins stumped" or go to creation.com and type in the search box "mutations".

Information was put in 'kinds' from the beginning and each 'kind' has only that information available to it. Fish do not have information for wings. Birds no not have information for gills. A prokaryote does not have the information man has.