A YLC is Bemused At Others Engaging Evidence

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Rumraket

And the organism that exists today doesn’t have those genes(at least, no functional version of them). That’s why they’re counted as “lost”. So clearly it doesn’t need them to be alive and function as the organism it is.

That probably means a loss of 70% of its differentiated cell types. The claim that worms are simple animals is interesting. A worm at the top of this tree contains almost all the vertebrate WNT pathways.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@colewd

That probably means a loss of 70% of its differentiated cell types.

No, it doesn’t “probably” mean that at all. You’re just making that whole thing up on the spot. Just like you’re doing on theskepticalzone.

Let me quote it to you here too so you can’t miss it:

@Rumraket

colewd : You don’t need to test it Rum the gene loss hypothesis itself is falsified by population genetics.

You’re blathering again Bill. This time you’re introducing the field of population genetics out of nowhere, and yet what you go on to state has no relation to population genetics. So it’s just mindless technobabble you’re spewing as usual when you have nothing to say but want to keep up the pretense.

colewd: 8 Lost genes (that are reproductive genes)

That sure sounds important. Nevertheless, that organism without those 8 genes still lives. I guess it isn’t actually important for that organism to have them, otherwise how could it live without them?

colewd: fixed in the population since the split from a common ancestor. 70% of a an organisms reproductive cell types

Another bunch of meaningless technobabble.

So in the same post you’ve introduced three blanked claims out of nowhere.

1. That “population genetics” falsifies gene loss. A claim for which you reference no evidence, or argument. Nothing you’ve said relates to population genetics.
2. That they’re “reproductive genes”, which is a category you just made up because it sounds clever and important.
3. That these Wnt-family gene losses has translated into the loss of “70% of reproductive cell types”. Another two completly made up ideas. The idea that 70% of a particular category of cells were lost is made up, and that the category is “reproductive cell types”.

You just make up nonsense technobabble when you have nothing else to say. It’s pathetic.

William, why do you allow yourself to just make this nonsense up as you go along? Is it not clear to you that you’re not being honest or rational?

colewd: vanishes into thin air.

Nothing has “vanished into thin air”. Genes are being inactivated and degraded by mutations, so they first become pseudogenes, and are then incrementally being erased by deletion mutations. Many of the “lost” genes in the graph are actually still present in the organisms genomes as nonfunctional pseudogenes. Junk DNA.