The Evolution Theory is a Myth Equivalent to the Flat Earth Theory

So if a gene affects both eye color and skin color, or fur color, then it should be true to say that a mutation to that gene will affect eye color and skin color or fur color but not the shape of toenails. That is, my point stands: a mutation can only vary whatever phenotypic effect the gene governs.

The point you keep missing is the idea of a phenotypic effect the gene governs is a bit problematic unless you are talking about protein structure. Genes can find multiple uses - and can find new uses without even mutating.

So, evolution has demonstrably occurred, but you have a theoretical argument proving that it can't, and you're not going to let mere facts stand in the way of your theory.And you're comparing who to flat-Earthers? People other than yourself?

That's pretty bizarre. Telling you something you don't understand is "evasion" - but you can claim something you don't understand is wrong?

That is not common knowledge, and it is wrong. Many traits are the result of many different genes interacting with one another.You have also not shown that a gene can not do something else. It is simply a bare assertion you keep making.

"The ARX gene provides instructions for producing a protein that regulates the activity of other genes. On the basis of this action, the ARX protein is called a transcription factor. The ARX gene is part of a larger family of homeobox genes, which act during early embryonic development to control the formation of many body structures. Specifically, the ARX protein is believed to be involved in the development of the brain, pancreas, testes, and muscles used for movement (skeletal muscles)."
ARX gene: MedlinePlus Genetics What you can't seem to get your head around is that mutations in these genes can change what they govern and change how they function. You seem to have invented these restrictions out of thin air.

I already disproved your claims in previous posts. Perhaps you should check them out. Given your refusal to address posts disproving your claims, it would seem that you have more in common with the flat earthers than we do.

You need some evidence to back up these claims. How is that insufficient for human evolution from a common ancestor shared with chimps?

I need evidence to prove that a gene governs a particular phenotype? I find this mindboggling. So you are saying maybe it governs more than one phenotypic effect? Maybe a whole lot of them? But apparently it governs those and not others. So a mutation would VARY those phenotypic effects according to the ways that trait varies, that is, within parameters determined by the gene itself. Seems logical to me.The complications you and others keep adding to this point seem designed merely to obfuscate and confuse. If a gene did the completely unpredictable things you seem to be saying it does there would be no point in there being a gene at all. At least now you are addressing my point, thank you. It's insufficient because if the gene determines the particular trait -- I keep using fur color because it seems simple enough although I understand that there are likely many genes that affect fur color, still we ought to be able to focus on one of them for the sake of this point -- then all you will ever get is a variation in fur color, but of course to get the changes required by the ToE you need change outside the parameters set by the genes or whatever other genetic element sets such parameters and guides the phenotypic outcome. Cuz they dictate that all you can get is the particular creature with all its beautiful variations and nothing else.Ah well.That's OK though. Obviously we are going to go limping along with the ToE even if it is totally untenable because the complications obscure how untenable it is, and the only people who could possibly get anywhere in this debate would be certified geneticists and geologists or scientists in some related field, and even then they won't get anywhere proving even the simplest points as long as they contradict the establishment position. Looks to me like this utterly false theory is just going to go on dictating false ideas until the Lord returns.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes. The fact that you find the idea of producing evidence for a scientific claim mind-boggling says a lot about you.

There are definitely genes. What you can't seem to understand is that many traits are the result of many genes, much like a cookie is the result of many ingredients. Even fur color is the result of many genes. In fact, there are two separate populations of black pocket mice that are black because of mutations in different genes.

I already said I know that traits are the result of many genes. That doesn't alter the point that a gene is what determines the phenotypic effect. So it's many genes, nevertheless each one plays its own particular role. And that being the case a mutation to a given gene that actually brings about a change can only vary whatever that particular gene does to the phenotype. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Where is the evidence for this claim?Why can't there be a gene duplication event where one copy keeps on doing what it did before, but the other duplicate mutates and starts doing something new and produces a new phenotype?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

[qs] Why can't there be a gene duplication event where one copy keeps on doing what it did before, but the other duplicate mutates and starts doing something new and produces a new phenotype? [/qa]I dunno. Seems to me a duplicate would do whatever the gene it duplicates does.

Surely you can understand why your uninformed opinions are not facts nor science?