Problems with evolution? Submit your questions.

To the extent that this is written in English, you seem to be calling all mutations "genetic loss".Well, I suppose the sequence of mutations from monkey to man (for example) lost the genes for being a monkey as such. But it seems to me that something was gained also. Split and cloven are synonyms.If creationists have their own version of the evolution of the horse, perhaps you could link me to someone moderately coherent explaining it. Of course, I said nothing of the sort, and you are unlikely to deceive anyone by pretending that I did.

No they aren't. Which is a different thing entirely. Plus anyone with the first clue about modern genetics would know that looking only at protein coding sequences misses a vast amount of genomic information using any coherent and rational metric.I'm not sure that just whining and insulting everyone else when you write very bad descriptions of molecular biology is really a substitute for having an actual answer to the question of how to measure, as in actually measure not just say 'wow that looks pretty complex, I bet god did it', the informational content of a genome or sequence of DNA. No. Why? Are adopted people particularly stupid? Is this some new brand of bigoted christian fascism we should look forward to hearing more of in the future? First they come for the jews, then the gays, then the adopted?TTFN,WK

quote:

---

you seem to think that a website that says that the appendix used to digest cellulose is actually supporting your claims

---

As well as this one:

quote:

---

The appendix is present in many primates, and primarily (pun intended) used to aid in the digestion of cellulose. Located between the small and large intestines, the appendix and neighboring caecum slows down the body's digestive process. (For drawings of the structure in various mammals click (2)here.) The human appendix (commonly referred to as the vermiform appendix, although Mayr calls it the caecal appendix) has lost this cellulose-digesting ability. Dr. Douglas Theobald argues that while humans do consume some cellulose, the ability of the caecum and appendix to digest it is insignificant. Consequently, plants like grass cannot be digested by humans.
410 error - Gone

---

quote:

---

Reduced Digestibility of raw fibers, in particular. Most people cannot digest raw food fibers very well. They lack the enzymes to digest cellulose and the others. This is a fact, even if one does not like it. Taking a cellulase enzyme will help, but will not overcome this problem.
RAW FOOD AND JUICING

---

quote:

---

That there are different strengths of cellulose with respect to this imaginary digestive function.

---

Since animals have functional appendixes today, such as apes, the purpose of this organ can be clearly defined.

quote:

---

Sometimes I think creationism is not so much an ideology as a cognitive disorder.

---

Even I think thats funny.

That's another website saying that the function of the appendix is to digest cellulose.It does not say:* That the appendix used to produce cellulose.
* That cellulose digests things.
* That there are different strengths of cellulose with respect to this imaginary digestive function.
* That some cellulose is "strong" enough to digest raw meat.
* That some cellulose is "strong" enough to digest small rocks. Quite so. It is to digest cellulose. It is not to "produce" cellulose that is "strong enough" to "easily digest small rocks".What was your definition of "handicapped" again?

quote:

---

To the extent that this is written in English, you seem to be calling all mutations "genetic loss".

---

You asked:

quote:

---

Where "incorrectness" and "damage" are assessed how?

---

And these are all examples. There are more. Don't be such a poopypants.

quote:

---

Well, I suppose the sequence of mutations from monkey to man (for example) lost the genes for being a monkey as such. But it seems to me that something was gained also.

---

This is nothing more than an obvious statement. If evolution is true, then of course information would be lost and gained over milliions of years. It would be unlikely to find anything else.It offers no relevance to our current subject, being origin of genetic chemical arrangements.

quote:

---

If creationists have their own version of the evolution of the horse, perhaps you could link me to someone moderately coherent explaining it.

---

Yet somehow you managed to figure out what I said. If I'm incoherant, and you can read what I am writing...

quote:

---

Split and cloven are synonyms.

---

No. Since Split can refer to other animals, including Rhino's and Camels, that have three toes, where as cloven cannot, as it only refers to animals with two.

quote:

---

Of course, I said nothing of the sort, and you are unlikely to deceive anyone by pretending that I did.

---

Well, we are back to square one now aren't we...I thought you had a point to make on HGT....

Ah, creationist dialectic at its finest.Since you include "transcription errors" in your list of things that constitute "genetic loss", aren't you claiming that all mutations (except perhaps chromosome fission and fusion) constitute "genetic loss", whatever their result? Or "mutation" as it is more concisely known. But not what you meant. You are still not communicating to me what you think creationists think the limbs of the ancestors of modern horse looked like, and how this differs from the opinion of people who have looked at the limbs of the ancestors of modern horses. And you will find it in my posts.If there's something in there you don't understand, maybe you could ask me about it instead of making up gibberish in your head and pretending that it is my opinion.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

quote:

---

No they aren't.

---

Oops. I meant codons. Your right.I'm typing too fast. Thats okay. You're an evolutionist, you are used to mistakes...

quote:

---

rational metric

---

Dummy this please, no idea what your point is....

quote:

---

answer to the question of how to measure

---

You never seem to finish sentences. It's hard to read what your points are, but I think I got this one.Nucleotide content, coding densities, total functional DNA sequences, and complexity of sequences.Lets put this another way, since you obviously do not accept the above answer (don't bother, every evolutionist is the same, even though I quoted a scientist talking about the information content in codons and DNA in a previous post, I'll have a little fun with this).Which is more complex: Human, or an amoeba? AND why?And you cannot use any of the answers I provided, since you called them all wrong.

quote:

---

Are adopted people particularly stupid?

---

Statistically, they are more likely drop out of school, commit crimes, and not go to college.

quote:

---

new brand of bigoted christian fascism

---

HEIL HITLER. hahahaha

quote:

---

there some sort of handbook about how to show you know nothing about genetics/molecular biology that they are all following?

​

Or that you can't talk about molecular biology coherently

​

I'm not sure that just whining

---

All from your previous posts. I'm just saying, if you can't take it, don't dish it.

quote:

---

First they come for the jews, then the gays, then the adopted?

---

I would have done adopted first, but its up to you I suppose...

quote:

---

No they aren't.

---

(speaking of nucleotide sequences)Okay, then where do Amino acids come from? Because now all of a sudden, they don't come from nucleotide sequences...you are re-inventing science, right before my eyes. I am not worthy.Anways, I haven't seen any real scientific responses in your post...I'll tell you the same thing I told Bluebird or whatever. If you want to critize my personal beliefs, write me a message. If something I wrote on here is scientifically incorrect, feel free to correct me, or offer a rebuttal.If you want to distort my evidences to make them incorrect, and offer no resources for any claim in regards to the current topic, then goodbye.You too will be able to sleep at night knowing that your next post will be untouched if you don't offer evidence to support your beliefs. If I am required to, so are you. Bye Timmy.

quote:

---

That's another website saying that the function of the appendix is to digest cellulose.

---

Yes, thats my point...is it not? Whats going on here.

quote:

---

That the appendix used to produce cellulose.

---

Since cellulose is found in raw foods, it shouldn't produce it, it should digest it. Thats my point.

quote:

---

That some cellulose is "strong" enough to digest small rocks.

---

The appendix contains lymphoid tissue. Not cellulose. The cellulose comes from the raw foods.

quote:

---

Quite so. It is to digest cellulose.

---

THATS WHAT I'M SAYING.I can't remember what point I wanted to make, because now you are agreeing with me. I'm lost.

Then let me remind you.In post 234 you wrote: And when I quoted this, and pointed out that this was not true, you called me "handicapped".It would therefore seem to be your "point", such as it is:* That the appendix used to produce cellulose.
* That cellulose digests things.
* That there are different strengths of cellulose with respect to this imaginary digestive function.
* That some cellulose is "strong" enough to digest raw meat.
* That some cellulose is "strong" enough to digest small rocks.
* That anyone who disagrees with you about this is handicapped.

quote:

---

Ah, creationist dialectic at its finest.

---

*brushes shoulder*

quote:

---

Since you include "transcription errors" in your list of things that constitute "genetic loss", aren't you claiming that all mutations (except perhaps chromosome fission and fusion) constitute "genetic loss", whatever their result?

---

Where "incorrectness" and "damage" are assessed how? Thats how. I never claimed this was due to a loss. You asked me to give you examples of genetic damage and incorrect sequencing, and I did.

quote:

---

Or "mutation" as it is more concisely known.

---

Right, but if I use that terminology, you would have attacked my word choice, so I am required to use alternatives that prevent this.

quote:

---

You are still not communicating to me what you think creationists think the limbs of the ancestors of modern horse looked like, and how this differs from the opinion of people who have looked at the limbs of the ancestors of modern horses.

---

It is irrelevant, as I stated before, since both evolutionists and creationists agree that horse ancestors had split hooves. The means of this are trivial, since we are not debating this subject. You simply asked me about it, so I gave you the source for the information. I assumed it was because you didn't believe that this was true. A side note of our current discussion.Unless you want to change the topic?

quote:

---

And you will find it in my posts.

---

What? Which message was the point made in?? I can't find it. You left off after asking me if HGT constitutes new genetic information...and I said yes...expecting you to make some sort of association between HGT and genetic origins.Or was that the point?

quote:

---

It would therefore seem to be your "point", such as it is:

​

* That the appendix used to produce cellulose.
* That cellulose digests things.
* That there are different strengths of cellulose with respect to this imaginary digestive function.
* That some cellulose is "strong" enough to digest raw meat.
* That some cellulose is "strong" enough to digest small rocks.
* That anyone who disagrees with you about this is handicapped.

---

Oh. Well I'm definitely wrong. And logically, proved myself handicapped.Ooops. HAHAHAHAHHA. It's wayyyy to early for this. I'm starting to have fun proving myself wrong.

Yeah. You see now why you should listen to the nice evolutionists?

quote:

---

Yeah. You see now why you should listen to the nice evolutionists?

---

Dammit, I'm never going to live this down now. It was an accident, it's freakin 4am where I am. I'm tired, and I have to poop.

But in post 233, you said that this genetic damage and incorrect sequencing was the very definition of "genetic loss". Got that? You say that "errors during transcription" constitute incorrectness and/or damage, and that this incorrectness and damage is the very definition of "genetic loss".Therefore, you are saying that errors during transcription constitute genetic loss. No. To recap.You agreed that antibiotic resistance acquired through HGT of plasmids constitutes a "genetic gain" (post 219).You further, when pressed, agreed that if antibiotic resistance was also acquired through mutation, that would also have to be counted as a "genetic gain" (message 233).I then pointed out that by doing experiments with clonal lines, we can demonstrate that such resistance does arise by mutation without HGT being implicated or indeed possible.Unless you wish to go back on your own admissions, or dispute the experimental results, you must now admit that some mutations produce "genetic gain".---I still don't know what you think about horses, but as you say it is hardly relevant.

Might I suggest you go take that poop and rest afterwards? There is no time limit on responsees, you know. This might stop errors like that from creeping in.