It's got nothing to do with "Typicial creationist BS". I simply asked you to provide an example of a practical use for evolutionary theory, but you repllied with a completely irrelevant, anti-theist rant. In other words, you've got nothing. Therefore you would agree with me that evolutionary theory has provided no practical uses at all in applied science ... no?
The practical use for the theory of evolution is in explaining how species changed over time.
That's just chance working in mutations, nothing to do with "usage or fecundity," which I assume to be a fantasy explanation either you or something you read made up.
Are you saying it is just a fantasy that the chimp and human genomes are different from one another?
Genes only change by which alleles make it up, or by mutations which in most cases do not change what the gene does at all, although in very rare cases could possibly bring about a new version of the gene's expression, but in some cases produces a disease process and in yet other cases simply kills the allele altogether.
Then how do you explain the physical differences between humans and chimps if it isn't due to beneficial differences between their genomes?
The onjly thing that could alter existing alleles and produce new alleles is mutation and that as I've said above is a very iffy process as far as any desirable result goes. I'm always thinking from the creationist view of the original genome and that is an unbroken chain of DNA that is functional at all points, many genes for just one trait in most cases, each having two alleles that in combination all together create a huge variety of variations on that trait.
If changing a genome makes the genome worse, how can there be different genomes in different original kinds? According to your view of genetics, there should only be one species in existence with the one and only possible genome. If you change that genome at all the species ceases to exist.
No, the form of the traits that develop can't exceed whatever the limits are that are already built into the genome.
Then there should only be one created kind, but there isn't. Obviously, those limits don't exist. If genomes can't be changed to produce a new kind, then even a creator could not do it. If changing a genome can produce a new kind, then you need to explain why the observed processes of mutation could not produce those changes.
You have the ToE perspective that sees one evolving from the other but since I don't look at it that way I see two different creatures each with its own genome hardwired to its own characteristics since Creation.
According to your own view, humans and chimps are physically different because of the differences between their genomes, correct?
If so, then mutations are capable of producing different species because mutations produce differences between genomes.
The sense in which mutations make a genome worse is that they interrupt functioning alleles which in most cases has a neutral affect and doesn't change the product, but in some cases may kill a gene or produce a disease.
If this were the case then a Creator could not produce different species because any change to a genome would interrupt functioning alleles.
There is no mechanism for mutations to alter the genome to produce anything else than those characteristics.
Name one difference between the human and chimp genomes that the mechanisms of mutation could not produce. Just one.
Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
Yeah, right - your "evidence" is a few fossils with a gigantic gap between reptiles and mammals.
The fossils fill that gap.
You have no the slightest idea what so sort of environmental pressures would cause the jaw-bones of a reptile to evolve into the inner-ear bones of a mammal, nor can you begin to explain how the supposed mutations evolved in this process would confer survival advantages.
That screeching sound you hear is the goal posts being drug across the field. Are transitional fossils evidence or not?
I have to come back to this later but please answer this question: Isn't it true that the human genome will create only a human being with human characteristics and there is nothing in it that could produce anything else or even a single characteristic of another species?
As you have already agreed, if we change the human genome into the chimp genome then we would get a chimp.
Don't be silly. I know you can't show anything I've asked you to show because it's impossible. You think it's possible so the burden is on you to show it, show SOMETHING, ANYTHING genetic that would show that you can get a completely new species from an existing species.
That's easy. The genetic differences between chimps and humans are the mutations that produced different species.
That's what the ToE says, but Creation says that the genomes were created separately and uniquely for each species, created to produce a particular species through reproduction and no other.
If mutations produced those same differences, wouldn't the result be the same?
First of all I'm only stating what I understand to be what mutations do. They have mostly a neutral effect, not changing the product of the gene, or they have a deleterious effect causing disease or some other negative thing, or very rarely I gather they may bring about a beneficial change. So it MUST be the case, I don't understand how you can deny it.
Deleterious mutations are removed by selection leaving the beneficial and neutral mutations. This must be the case, I don't understand how you can deny it.
But the Creator doesn't need mutations to create a genome.
What's the difference between nature changing a specific base and a creator changing that very same base in the same exact way? Won't the results be the same?
For whatever reason I have the impression that no mutation in a chump gene could ever produce a human trait and I have no idea why. It seems to be something about the genome that ties it to the creature, **** it's hardwired to that creature somehow, but I gather that although the ape and the human genomes are very similar even the same sequence of the DNA will always produce a chimp product in the chimp and a human product in the human. That is just a fact is it not?
That's not a fact. As I have discussed many times now, if you changed the human genome so that it exactly matched the chimp genome then you would have a chimp, not a human.
But you are saying that mutations can never produce changes that would result in a new species. Obviously, they can.
For the sake of discussion I'll give you that but there is certainly an enormous number of genetic diseases that didn't get selected against.
Can you name a single genetic disease that has reached fixation (i.e. found in 100% of the population)?
The Creator doesn't "CHANGE" anything. At the Creation He just made whatever He made, bodies for all the living creatures.
Bodies need DNA.
There is just a few percent difference between the human genome and the chimp genome, so how do you explain the 98% that is shared? Why do we share that much DNA, even in parts of the genome that have nothing to do with making our bodies?
You also claim that no matter how many changes you make to the human genome you will only ever get genetic diseases or a human. This would also be true for a creator. So how is it that changing just a small percentage of the human genome results in a new and healthy species?
Sometimes you make an "if" statement about mutations making this or that and I have to say "yes" because of the way you've stated it, but to my mind mutations cannot do anything you think they do, that's just a statement of faith in a way, because the ToE needs them to do what you think they do.
Then which of the genetic differences between humans and chimps can mutations not produce? I can't find any. How about you?
Yes, if you change the entire genome as you say, to exactly match the chimp genome, but I'm talking about the present circumstances in which the existing genome will always without exception produce the creature it belongs to and can't produce even a fingernail as it were of any other species.
You just contradicted yourself.
The mutations or changes that would be required to get a human being from an ape are impossible.
Which mutations are impossible? Point to a single genetic difference between humans and chimps that mutations could not produce.
But mutations that would actually change an ape into a human would have to change the genome itself, there is no pathway built into the genome for that so it's going to have to be a matter of trial and error and that level of change would have to take an enormous amount of time and meanwhile the errors would have to proliferate and many bizarre "transitionals" have to occur.
Mutations hardly ever change anything in the phenotype and when they do it is usually a disease.
Diseases will be removed by natural selection, so that is a moot point. The mutations that do change phenotype and are beneficial will be passed on at a higher rate and can spread through the population.
Again there are a lot of genetic diseases, a list of thousands I believe, that obviously didn't get removed.
What percentage of the human population has these diseases? It's a very tiny percentage, is it not?
And as I understand this there are so few that fit this description the number is really negligible.
So the physical differences between humans and chimps comes down to a negligible few genetic differences? Are there just 5 or 6 genetic differences between chimps and humans that are responsible for all of our physical differences?
Since humans are not descended from any ape at all there is no connection whatever between the genomes.
There is a connection. It's the 98% of the DNA sequences that is the same. For the purposes of what I am asking you, it doesn't matter if this is a result of common descent or creation because DNA acts the same no matter how it got there.
You are saying that if a base is changed, whether by a mutation or by a creator, that it will either be neutral or deleterious, and we can ignore any beneficial changes because those are few if any. If this is true, then we have to ask how a creator can create two separate genomes that differ by 40 million differences while sharing 98% of the rest and not have this result in millions of diseases. Also, how can this result in any beneficial differences between the species if differences cause so many diseases, according to you?
Even if we assume creation, what you are saying can't be true.