This is an assertion you have latched on to which has no real support without materialistic assumptions.
-
Different genes in different organisms some of which do not follow the tree.
-
Different chromosome counts.
-
Different genome sizes.
That’s very interesting sir, but it doesn’t answer my question. I don’t care whether it really is conserved, or whether it is a different starting point. You know what part of the genome I am referring to. Just answer my question about that.
It’s a pretty simple question. It’s not a trick question. Just walk me through the logic of how “many protein coding genes not [being] conserved among mammals” is a reason to believe that the 90% of the human genome that is not conserved (and not subject to a recognized exception) is nonetheless functional.
Forget it. You’re talking to Bill Cole. Trust me. Just, trust me. It doesn’t matter what code you feed it, it will not compute.
It. Will. Not. Compute.
2 Likes
No u!
Which ones? Please, name two.
I fail to see how this is a “difference that is a critical aspect of a nested hierarchy”. Please, explain.
I fail to see how this is a “difference that is a critical aspect of a nested hierarchy”. Please, explain.
In your question you are making a claim that it is not conserved. It may indeed be conserved from its point of origin.
All humans genomes are 99% identical.
The nested hierarchy claim is meaningless until you can show it is the product of reproduction.
Excuse me, what are you suggesting? Does DNA magically rain down from the sky? Does it just pop out of nowhere and grow organisms around it all of a sudden? What on earth do you think genes are?
Hint’s literally in the name. We are talking about the stuff that is passed on from ancestor to descendant. Literally the conversation is about the substance of inheritance.
Reproduction in biology is not crystal growth. It is, at its core, about the replication of DNA. Any presence or absence of any patterns of DNA is a product of reproduction, unless you want to suggest that a chemical process which is literally visible under the microscope as it happens doesn’t actually occur and frickin’ sorcery takes place in its stead with every cell division. Is that your ‘challenge’, to show you reproduction as it happens? Perhaps to sequence and compare the daughter genomes? At what point, pray tell, will you be satisfied? When I challenged you, I asked precisely what it is I was missing: Usually it was stuff you yourself claimed. I predict you will abstain from giving a clear answer as to the scope of your challenge much like you dodge any challenges anybody else ever poses to you.
Is this what you are seriously asking, to show that reproduction is how DNA multiplies? Or are you being obtuse about how nested hierarchies are an inescapable mathematical consequence of the accumulation of random alterations on any sequence over intermediate step counts?
1 Like
You appear not to know what “conserved” means, and are confusing conservation of sequence similarity with conservation of presence of entire sequences.
Why would you think that? You have never been able to present a coherent argument.
But they don’t. There’s no reason to believe such a thing. Gene differences (by which you mean presence/absence) fall into a nested hierarchy and so are evidence for common descent.
Once again, probably for more than the hundredth time, common descent doesn’t explain differences; it explains the pattern of differences, i.e. that nested hierarchy that people keep mentioning to you.
And yet you have no explanation for nested hierarchy whatsoever. Nor have you explained why nested hierarchy, as you assert, is not expected from common descent.
2 Likes
No, you’re wrong about that. It’s yet another symptom of your main underlying problem: for you everything is binary, yes or no, 1 or 0, present or absent. But that’s not how any of that works including Gpuccio’s ideas. He’s attempting a quantitative measure of functional information, not just “is there or isn’t there”. If non-conserved or less-conserved sequences can have as much functional information as strongly conserved ones, his measure is useless.
You appear to agree common descent does not explain the differences.
Mutation explains the differences. Common descent explains the nested hierarchy of the shared differences. This is not complicated, and it has been repeatedly explained to you.
3 Likes
Mutation does explain genetic disease. Common descent explains the similarities in existing populations.
As I always have. We’ve been over this so many times before. Experience shows that this is not something you are capable of understanding.
I think you omitted a “not” in there, as in “this is not complicated”.
1 Like
We have always had common ground here.
Explaining the pattern of the differences is a vague claim.
Sorry, no, we have no common ground because you don’t understand what any of this means.
It isn’t in any way vague, provided you have the least clue about what it means.
I’ll take that as an admission that you’ve always known everything you’ve been saying on this board and elsewhere has been hot nonsense.
Because you just admitted there is nothing left to be explained, even if you don’t realize it and/or refuse to admit it.
Whoops… fixed
I’m afraid not. Bill, in addition to not understanding what other people say, also doesn’t understand what he himself says. What he meant by that isn’t what a reasonable person would understand it to mean, and in fact Bill doesn’t know what he meant.
3 Likes
Ok… I’m taking about the parts that are unconstrained and are changing at the same rate as would be predicted by neutral evolution. Just answer the question in respect of that portion of the genome.
I’m starting to see what you meant. He’s afraid to answer straight questions.
I wonder why that is. Has he lost arguments on this exact subject before perhaps?
Man, I would enjoy cross examining this guy.
But you’re right, this is just feeding the trolls. I’m trying to stop. I’m trying…
1 Like
If I had a dollar for every time Bill has avoided a math question, I’d have enough money that he would be confused by the number.
3 Likes