MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?

I dont believe there is gene loss. The genes are just silent if not dominate. DNA is quite remarkable. Another reason I don't believe in common descent. If it were animal x could arguably give birth to anything contained in its DNA. To argue loss, would mean you need evidence. Cells inside the ovaries, or testicles, have lysosomes. And when reproducing, if there is a mutation the body detects it and the cell with the mutation destroys itself with its own lydosomes from inside due to stimulation from outside the cell.Edited by DOCJ, : Add

How exactly do you explain time always existing from your pov? Any reason to believe it? How exactly do you explain the wmap? The bb all these scientists support, or are you an electrical universe supporter?Edited by DOCJ, : Err

Wow good job buddy. You are learning. You still have not figured it out... 🤤

I'm going to help you out a tiny bit. Evidence does not speak evolution. Evidence is interpreted, people use their imagination, draw an idea, research the idea, test the idea and draw a conclusion. And other people test it and decide, etc. Its pretty simple. And it is still unhealthy to change your mind frequently just because a new rock is found. And people think it's a new transitional fossil... And even if it is a fossil that looks like something else, doesn't mean it is actually transitional... It's something that lived and died. That's it. Yes I can intrepret it too.. I'm not anchoring.. Look, I didn't insult you.. Wow.. You really need to learn how to discuss issues.. learn some etiquette.. 😙😁😛Edited by DOCJ, : ErrEdited by DOCJ, : Err

Good job buddy.

Feel free to start a discussion. Promise you I aint going anywhere. And there are absolutely no issues in Genesis, it's just you anchoring.

The allels contain the genes. And chromosomes contain up to 25,000 genes. Plenty of room.

I'm not going anywhere, feel free to get this discussion rolling.

Referencing false teachers. It is not just needing a job.

Right... Figured 1 of you would step into it... Testing is always fun.

The alleles contain the genes. Different sequences of alleles come together and wallah you have a gene. And obviously an allele is not a gene as 1 by itself is not a gene. The video does a great job of explaining not only that point but the point of drift.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsgYxJN0xx8

Incorrect. A combination of alleles are a gene. Hence alleles are contained in the gene. The gene released that stimulates the cells to do what they do in order for a trait to be seen is because multiple alleles come together...Just like multiple chromosomes come together to make up the DNA. The DNA contains the chromosomes.Edited by DOCJ, : errEdited by DOCJ, : errEdited by DOCJ, : errEdited by DOCJ, : err

I see what is happening in our discussion. It's a language issue. I will restate my point differently.The alleles make up the gene. They are contained within the gene. However, they are not THE gene. Just like chromosomes are not THE DNA. Edited by DOCJ, : err

I don't believe I have any issues with that point.

You never responded to 234.The silenced gene/s are merely being drifted/recessed as in the video. The information is not lost. Unless you can provide some data showing your point, there is no reason to believe a gene is lost.. Drift can occur for thousands of years. Then people are like, HEY where did you get that blond hair, or those blue eyes. Nobody has those in our family (that they know). Hence no lost information. At least that is what they taught and I confirmed in college. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsgYxJN0xx8