Faith writes:
There are two different theories here about the cause of "differences in DNA sequence." MUTATIONS are not responsible for them, BUILT-IN NATURALLY OCCURRING ALLELES, or differences in DNA sequence, are responsible for them.
We observe mutations producing new and naturally occurring alleles all of the time.
You have a serious problem with your argument. You want to claim that any change to the DNA sequence of a species' genome will cause irreparable harm. However, there are millions of changes that separate species, and they aren't harmful. How can you say that mutations producing those changes will cause harm?
We are not genetically related to chimps. There are no mutations that could possibly occur to form one species from another.
Again, you have the same problem. First, you haven't produced a single criteria for determining genetic relatedness, so your claim is hollow. Second, the reason that humans and chimps are different from one another is because of the DNA sequence differences between their genomes. How can you claim that changes in DNA sequence can not produce new species when that is exactly what we observe?
In the best possible scenario mutations would only substitute one ordinary allele for another, which is redundant and unnecessary, but in reality they don't do even that much, they either manage not to do anything good or bad, or they render an allele unfunctional, or they produce an actual disease process. The ToE needs mutations but the mutations it needs don't exist.
Then how do you explain the physical differences between species? What is the cause if it isn't a difference in DNA sequence?
And if you understand my argument the formation of phenotypes has to lose genetic diversity so even if all your genetic diversity is made up of mutations when phenotypes are selected most of that diversity is excluded from the new population anyway, NECESSARILY excluded or you don't get the new phenotypes that are supposedly the evidence of evolution. Perhaps it would help if you assumed the lotus position and meditated on this for a while. {ABE: Sorry, trying to be amusing. Seriously, if you prayed to the living God of the Bible you'd probably start understanding these things. /ABE}
Then how do you explain the physical differences between species if it isn't due to a difference in DNA sequence within their respective genomes? Take any of the 40 million mutations that separate humans and chimps and show us how the observed mechanisms of mutation could not produce those differences. Can you do that?
This statement is what is meaningless. Did you mean "living dead species?" Anyway I have NO idea what you are talking about. The loss in genetic diversity occurs when new phenotypes are developing. It MUST occur. This should be obvious just from knowing how breeding works. The only explanation of all of this is that living things did not evolve from a common ancestor but belong to their own particular genetic Kind or Species, within which much variation is possible. For this variation to occur the evolving population must lose genetic diversity so that it can't vary beyond the point where there is no more diversity left. There may be plenty of genetic diversity in other subspecies or breeds of the same Kind, but where it is varying or evolving it has to lose diversity. This is the built-in limit to evolution that defines the limit to the Kind as well.
Increases in genetic diversity also have to occur due to new mutations in each and every generation and in each and every individual. If two populations are kept apart and do not interbreed, this will necessarily result in each population become less like the other one over time. This is due to the accumulation of population specific mutations. We have directly observed this process occurring. For example, captive breeding populations of lab mice have diverged from one another over the last 60 years.
As I described before, you would describe this divergence as a loss in genetic diversity. Therefore, your description is meaningless. Multiply this process over and over until you have millions of diverging species we have today, and you would call each and every step a loss in genetic diversity.
What you are calling mutations are not mutations, they are naturally occurring built-in genetic differences.
What's the difference? If a mutation turns AGG into AGC, how would the effect be any different than if a supernatural creator turned that same AGG into AGC?
You consistently confuse natural allelic forms with mutations. But when I'm talking about mutations coming along to mess up a breed I'm talking hypothetically for the sake of argument, that once the breed is formed, which requires reduction in geneitic diversity, it would wreck the breed for there to be any new genetic input, whether from mutations, (which I include only for the sake of argument because I believe they are predominantly destructive) or resumed gene flow due to immigration of other individuals. The only reason I emphasize the preservation of a breed or species is to make the point that the ToE claims new species or phenotypes to be evidence of evolution and I'm showing that it can't be because it's genetically limited.
As already shown, humans and chimps are not wrecked, even though they are separated by 40 million differences. Reality proves you wrong.
There aren't any mutations happening in these dogs, period. It's all hypothetical for the sake of argument. The dog breeds are developed from natural built-in genetic variability.
Evidence?
In humans, we observe that every human is born with about 50 mutations. Why would dogs be any different?
Oh but it does, it makes a perfect analogy. Even Darwin understood that much.
Really? Let's use the peppered moths as an example. If you were breeding white moths, the mutation that produced black moths would "wreck the breed". However, in the real world that mutation was very beneficial to the moths when they found themselves in an environment darkened by soot from factories. Your analogy completely fails. What breeders want has nothing to do with what is and could be selected for in nature.
My basic argument proves that the ToE doesn't work. That leaves design.
Your basic argument doesn't have the basics, like a falsifiable list of criteria for determine what genetic relatedness is evidenced by.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
