Disadvantageous Mutations: Figures

That's not true. Mutations in the germ line can be disadvantageous, neutral or advantageous. And mutations can be advantageous in one environment and disadvantageous in another. Watching debates are not useful. People tend to tell porkies in oral debates, because there's not time to check the sources.What would be more useful would be to do research. And research doesn't mean this one said this; this one said that, at all. That's not research and the opposite of science.

This one was funny. It seems as if this guy is really, really not too bright, while pretending to be brilliant. 'The issue of genetic mutations', hey?Let's take a guess and be a Prophet. Gregory doesn't know how to measure 'genetic information', yet would go on about telling everyone in the world exactly how to quantify "more'' or "less'' genetic information because he read someting about it on some religious website.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Thanks, Doc. To me it's just unbelievable that someone would read a few creationist tracts and then think that it's 'scientific'. Then repeat untruths and all that.I'll shut up.

Really? How do you measure genetic information? Please provide the units of measurement. Without units of measurement there's no way of telling whether information is lost or gained.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

What a long, long way of acknowledging that you don't have the foggiest of what you're talking about when talking about "more or less genetic information". So, let's get it clear. You measure 'genetic information' as the number of base pairs in the genome together with the number of genes? Is that how you do it?So, according to you the bigger the number of base pairs together with the bigger the number of genes the 'more the genetic information' an organism has? Is that how you quantify "genetic information"?

Oh, and QSS, you changing things from "genetic information" to "information" didn't go unnoticed.

Seeing that you appeared since your last post on this subject; just wanted to know whether you have figured out how to quantify genetic information yet.

Ah, great. I have no way of quantifying "genetic information". You claimed that you can. So do it.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

So, again you can't tell us how to measure "genetic information".

This one is funny. That's the way you, yourself proposed.

After all of this, CRR was still unable to provide any quantitavive analyses on how to determine whether any organism has "more" or "less" genetic information than another organism. Couldn't tell us how an organism could "gain" or " loose" genetic information. All CRR did was to claim that thumb-sucks count as "science".Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

I want to bump this up again. CRR has no way of quantifiying the amount of genetic information in any organism.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

So, no quantitative result for measuring genetic information yet?

Ah, a creationist being photoshopped into a lab she's never worked in ...

Ah, her PhD thesis. Ever read it? I have an electronic copy available at the organisation I work at. Do you? Let's give you a little hint. It mentions millions of years. And nothing about 6000 years.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.