If the designed genomes have different sequences then those differences are changes.
See, this makes NO sense at all, NONE, ZIP. "Changes" from what? Each is UNIQUE, none has been CHANGED from another, each is a separate design. You do have a ****** ****** that has your brain so hardwired to mutations you simply cannot think outside that box.
AND WITH THAT BIZARRE PIECE OF CENSORSHIP BY PERCY I HAVE TO CONCLUDE THAT HE DOESN'T WANT TO SUSPEND ME DIRECTLY FOR SOME REASON SO HE'S DECIDED TO TAKE EVERY WORD IN THE DICTIONARY AWAY FROM ME ONE BY ONE UNTIL I CAN'T WRITE ANYTHING AT ALL. HE IS TRULY MAD.
YOu guys have no appreciation for the enormous amount of variability that exists in the millions/billions of genes in one genome each with only two alleles. It's enough to make all the cats from the cat genome, all the dogs from the dog genome (even counting all the junk DNA as other variations on a cat or a dog that got killed by mutations), there is no need for any mutations and all they do is get in the way of understanding what is really going on. If you don't see how you can never get anything BUT a cat from the cat genome or a chimp from the chimp genome I don't know how to make you see it.
You were saying the genome is way big and can more then handle the number of alleles.
I was saying the genome *is* big but it is finite and that not every allele possible could be in there. So the ones that were not there to begin with had to get into this limited genome somehow.
No one is arguing against cats make cats and chimps make chimps.
Weâ€™re arguing that genomes change over time. **** everything else in this universe.
I wasn't saying the [cat] genome can "more than handle the number of alleles," the point was that it originally had all the genetic stuff needed to make every kind of cat that exists now and ever existed. (most cat genomes now most likely have severely reduced genetic diversity BECAUSE so many species of cat have been made). So yes, every allele to make every possible cat is/was indeed in there from the beginning. And I count junk DNA as former alleles that contributed to the many kinds of cats, or dogs, or whatever though the variability in the genome without it is no doubt enough for everything that exists. Nothing additional "had to get into this limited genome somehow." I'm not saying genomes don't change but the way YOU think they change is not the way I think they change. I think they lose genetic diversity over time, and of course junk DNA in my model would be a record of lots of lost genetic diversity.
ABE: So now I'm remembering that you think the more mutations the better, the more "alleles" there are floating around in a population the better. I don't think mutations contribute anything at all to a genemoe, I think they are superfluous at best. I believe the genetic system is broken the way all llfe is broken, with death and disease etc., and that mutations are a form of disease and also contribute to death of genetic variability. They may sometimes repeat a useful sequence or in the case of neutral mutations at least not change anything, but they are not necessary or useful.
So your definition of change is more moving things around than creating something new? And yet you acknowledge that mutations, like SNPs, do happen. A single SNP would make a change. Make something new. Yes?
Yes I don't think there's any need for anything new, at least not in the original genome, before death entered the world.
My "definition of change" in the genome isn't so much "moving things around" as it is subtracting genetic diversity, and this is because of death. If death had not entered the world there would be no loss of genetic diversity and we would have a much larger range of interesting species/variations on every Kind.
Yes the Creation dictates how the genetic facts should play out, and it's possible to put together a very coherent model from it. Do you deny that death and disease are a huge part of our existence? Not sure why having an explanation for it should be more "gloomy" than the facts themselves.
Anyway, there's no need for mutations in this model so they exist as mistakes or negative factors that can only be explained in terms of the death and disease in existence.
So are you at the end of this discussion? Nothing more to say?