Summations Only

quote:

---

Maybe one of the biologists can explain how selective forces might apply to eradicate all traces of a gene?

---

A deletion event followed by recombination, or just recombination itself.

I appreciate that what I am implying is revolutionary and almost certainly wrong. The idea that red and blue assed baboons actually evolved from a human like ancestor rather than the other way round isn't likely to go down well. But you make a noteworthy point here. The area of the genome we are discussing is a highly conserved area as almost all other primates have this gene. This means that the human version is also a highly conserved area. It begs the question of how a frameshift like this could occur in such a highly conserved area. Yes, I am just running through the list of genes that were provided earlier. If you want the credit for finding the list of genes that is fine. Well done and congratulations! I was actually looking for trends. I know it's a small list and I can't really form any realistic conclusions but I thought it was worthy of investigation. link as requested

Again the question isn't really how such a mutation can occur, that is a simple result of random mutations, but rather why this particular frameshift has subsequently become fixed in the human population. Well apparently you didn't bother reading the source material the list came from, or indeed even paying close attention to the original post with the list in, if you had then you would already have seen that SIGLEC-13 wasn't completely deleted but rather a pseudogene.Your link doesn't really seem to provide any evidence at all supporting a deletion, so I suppose the contributor who made the entry may just have made a mistake.TTFN,WKEdited by Wounded King, : No reason given.Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I think everyone is fairly familiar with the biological species definition, and some may be familiar with the morphological definition. Here is a site for reference on these definitions:

---

The list leaves out the first recording of what is today termed as species, namely what is referred to as 'KINDS' in Genesis.When the question is asked, what is the most fundamental and first observable variations in life forms, one observable by all generations of humanity, the answer is exclusively seen in Genesis. Namely, this by terrain and habitat, as opposed to skeletal and hidden genes markings; the former is indisputably not confusing while the latter is subject to gross errors and manipulation. While the jaw bone of an ass can fit exactly to the jaw bone of a monkey, this can be the result of environment impact drift on the skeletal, not to mention such a similarity can be seen in millions of other bone pieces not reported: we cannot be sure here. We can here:1. Vegetation - including sub-branches like earth hugging shrubberry; an immobile life form.2. Sea borne. This includes transit life forms and those unseen by the naked eye.3. Airborne4. Land based. This includes mammals and creepy crawlies.5. Speech endowed human.One cannot talk science and leave out the first listing of life firm categories, in their correct protocol, from which all science emerged. Think it over, minus the phobia.

quote:

---

Again the question isn't really how such a mutation can occur, that is a simple result of random mutations, but rather why this particular frameshift has subsequently become fixed in the human population.

---

If its random then the result is not predictable, and a zebra will not necessarilly reproduce a zebra. As it turns out it is not random and a life form follows its own kind, solely dependent on the program directive transmitted via the seed output of the host. To disprove this, one must show a mutation occuring without the seed output. Catch the ball.

Well sometimes a zebra doesn't produce a zebra in the same way that many human pregnancies end in spontaneous abortions very early in the embryo's development. A number of these can be ascribed to embryonic lethal mutations which severly disrupt the embryo's development to the point of making it unviable.But no one is suggesting that an organisms entire genetic complement is randomised every generation. You seem to have come up with a new insane creationist strawman, well done. If by seed output you mean germ cells, i.e sperm and egg, then you are wrong. How an organism develops is not solely dependent on this. It also depends on a wide variety of environmental factors.Going by your reasoning every single organism should be an exact 50%/50% mixture of its parents' DNA, but we know this isn't the case from multiple studies across a wide variety of organisms. Even within an organism's somatic tissues many novel mutations can be identified.Mutations occur, some are harboured in the germ cells and some occur during the development of the embryo and can be passed on in that organism's own germ cells some occur in somatic tissues that will never contribute to germ cells.Clearly the germ cells are needed as the medium to convey genetic material in sexual species but that doesn' t say anything about mutation being random or not.So could you try and make coherent argument this time?TTFN,WKEdited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

I found a number of sources which stated the same thing ie that the gene was specifically deleted (whatever that means). Here is another
source.

Actually, I have found an even better link. This one categorically tells us the following;Siglec-11 - gene conversion
Siglec-12 - binding specificity changes
Siglec-13 - deletion
Siglec-14 - pseudogenization sourceEdited by Big_Al35, : No reason given.

quote:

---

If its random then the result is not predictable, and a zebra will not necessarilly reproduce a zebra.

​

Well sometimes a zebra doesn't produce a zebra in the same way that many human pregnancies end in spontaneous abortions very early in the embryo's development. A number of these can be ascribed to embryonic lethal mutations which severly disrupt the embryo's development to the point of making it unviable.

​

But no one is suggesting that an organisms entire genetic complement is randomised every generation. You seem to have come up with a new insane creationist strawman, well done.

---

What I'm NOT doing is creating a strawman. I remind you spent your post describing a 'sometimes' factor and a 'number of cases' - namely an abberation subject to maybe trillions of uncommon occurences happening simultaiously but which no one has ever witnessed in reality.

quote:

---

As it turns out it is not random and a life form follows its own kind, solely dependent on the program directive transmitted via the seed output of the host

​

If by seed output you mean germ cells, i.e sperm and egg, then you are wrong. How an organism develops is not solely dependent on this. It also depends on a wide variety of environmental factors.

---

The environment effects like a hand touching fire, which it not the impacting factor here by a country mile. By seed I refer to any core output from the host - your supposed to show how only the environment impacts here - w/o the seed?

quote:

---

Going by your reasoning every single organism should be an exact 50%/50% mixture of its parents' DNA, but we know this isn't the case from multiple studies across a wide variety of organisms. Even within an organism somatic tissues many novel mutations can be identified.

---

Read again. Its like a computational process, whereby the dual gene transmission includes a new factor derived from still past generational hosts, which accounts for trillions of new possibilities depending on what part is interwoven with which other - which ToE refers to as mutations, but with a varied spin inclined to its source. All repro works w/o any enviroenment impacts; it still depends solely on the seed.

quote:

---

Mutations occur, some are harboured in the germ cells and some occur during the development of the embryo and can be passed on in that organism's own germ cells some occur in somatic tissues that will never contribute to germ cells.

---

These are not environmental impacts.

quote:

---

Clearly the germ cells are needed as the medium to convey genetic material in sexual species but that doesn' t say anything about mutation being random or not.

​

So could you try and make coherent argument this time?

---

The evironment is a later impact, mainly impacting the external skins, eyes, hair, etc, and not connected with repro. To disprove this you have only one credible option. Leave one of the two parent hosts on a ledge with any environment you choose - and effect a reproduction.

Interestingly, both of your new sources have the same author as the original link you provided, Ajit Varki. The PNAS article does provide an original citation for the claim and it is another paper on which Ajit Varki was an author (Angata et al., 2004).Bearing in mind that the original paper used a human genome build from 2003 it is likely that more recent builds have improved the coverage in the region. In fact if you go to the UCSC site then you can see this by comparing the 2003 build with the more recent 2009 one between the SIGLEC10 and SIGLEC8 loci ( On the 2003 build this is chr19:56,612,450-56,647,230 and for the 2009 build it is chr19:51,920,751-51,955,107). In the earlier build there is a gap in the homology track for chimp of around 2kb (2000 nucelotides) which seems to be the putative deletion from the 2004 paper.So perhaps Ajit Varki and his co-authors just haven't reanalysed their data with the more recent builds, have missed the more recent work and are still referencing the older research. The current data however seems to indicate that there is no such deletion and that rather there has indeed been some sort of pseudogenisation.TTFN,WKEdited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

I'll take that as a no to my request to make a coherent argument.TTFN,WK

Imagine if you believed in a flat earth 500 years ago and said that as confidently? This is what you are doing now. I presented the first recording of species and their categorising - will you be more impressed if the term specie was used instead? Its about your response, which was only mildly funny.

If you believed the Earth was flat 500 years ago, you would be 1500 years behind.And, your belief would not account for observable data. It would not make accurate predictions. It would not yield any workable results.Can you give us an example of an invention based on flat earth?
Can you give us a paper written by any flat earth believers which adequately accounts for oceans?We are confident in evolution not because we want to be confident in something. We are confident in evolution because evolution accurately explains existing data, it accurately predicts future data, and it yield real world workable products.Can you say the same for Creationism?
Creationism can't account for existing data. It can't predict any future findings. And in THOUSANDS of years it has yet to yield a single product.In short, there's no there there.

Countless lab experiments have been done measuring mutation rates.Can you site a single lab experiment which measures Creationism beams? Explain fetal alcohol syndrome. You are mistaking the environment of the womb with the environment that the parent is in prior to conception.However, I'll take your bait. Take any man and have him spend a couple of months walking around Chernobyl, then use that sperm to create a child.You tell us, did the environment effect his reproductive material?

quote:

---

If you believed the Earth was flat 500 years ago, you would be 1500 years behind.

​

And, your belief would not account for observable data. It would not make accurate predictions. It would not yield any workable results.

​

Can you give us an example of an invention based on flat earth?
Can you give us a paper written by any flat earth believers which adequately accounts for oceans?

---

IMO, this is v short sighted and incorrect. The flat earth people were fully and equally intelligent for their time, and had no way of rejecting a flat earth. This is also true of early humans who adopted paganism and saw thunder as angry deities. Every one of us would come to the same conclusion in their times: tell us why the earth is not flat without a telescope? In fact those ancients are the first thinkers of the universe and our place in it. Things graduated slowly as new finds emerged - only in its due time, discoveries happened almost unvoluntarilly, as with penicilin. You are talking in hindsight only.

quote:

---

We are confident in evolution not because we want to be confident in something. We are confident in evolution because evolution accurately explains existing data, it accurately predicts future data, and it yield real world workable products.

---

1. Evolution does NOT explain existing data - there is an X factor applying. Evolution comes from genesis - every small detail of it. 3. Evolution is a later development in the universe, preceded by a host of factors which anticipate life [Genesis]. 4. Evolution is the wiring process in a directive program - its not the modern deity of a neo science. Today, most humans are behaving exactly like the ancients who bowed to thunder and made it their deity: the man made deity of evolution is the wiring in your cell phone chip - nothing more than that; the cell phone maker didit. The same applies wth everything, else its not science.

quote:

---

Can you say the same for Creationism?

---

No. Creationism is far superior and a far greater science, with no alternatives applying. When one delves into the scenario presented in ToE, they will find grotesque non-science as its base.

quote:

---

Creationism can't account for existing data.

---

The reverse is the case. Our science cannot account for existing data. We know zero/nothing about the origins of anything. All we know is the B-Z. We devise novel imageries like evolution, plank and infinite to cover our zero knowledge in this area, mostly because we don't like what we see - many careers hang in the balance here; they also don't want to be riciduled by their peers. It is better to admit we do not know and the not knowing does not mean we must invent fantastical scenarios to incline with evolution; this is fine as springboards only when something cannot be deciphered, but we must not confuse this as reality. For example, there is no such thing as NATURE, a modern man deity in line with Zeus.

quote:

---

It can't predict any future findings.

---

Its the only document humanity possesses which did so - numerously.

quote:

---

And in THOUSANDS of years it has yet to yield a single product.

---

Most all products we call science stems from the Hebrew bible; it KO'd Zeus and Jupiters when humanity was ready and introduced Monotheism, which made man think who/what is behind all this universe; how was it done; etc. It declared the universe as finite and gave a follow-up scenario of a lawless void with no form, then a lawbased universe with form [science]; it stated the first product was light, separated from the void because of specific laws [science]; then listed an array of separation actions which aniticipated life [science]. The first categorising of life form groups and their correct protocol has nothing to do with Darwin - its in Genesis, in its correct place [science]. How can evolution kick off without first having something to evolutionize [non-science]? And how can it operate without pre-actions which direct it to do so [non-science]? Which is the real science - Genesis - or ToE? One cannot even utter the words species; evolution; finite universe; etc - without mentioning Genesis as its introduction.Better that I test you with more relavent questions about schools and the Hebrew bible:Which is the first intriduction of MEDICINE? I mean its first separation from the occult, with a scientific process?Which is the oldest active calendar humanity possesses - and the most accurate one?Which is the first alphabetical book?Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.