Then that deals with your supposed “entropy” problem. If you really knew, you wouldn’t have said what you did.
You understand that new function would have reproductive advantage, right?
Any change can cause sequence entropy.
Are you claiming every new function has reproductive advantage or are you claiming correlation? How strong is the correlation?
Still not seeing the problem. A critical gene that mutates to lose function is obviously not going to be inherited further. Therefore, only ones that retain enough of a function, or even gain some are going to proliferate. What’s the problem?
Sure, if and when someone suggests that, I’ll gladly ask them that. In the meantime, I asked you how one can take separate creation into account, since you suggested doing that.
How can evidence point to things coming out of nothing by magic?
Magic is not an explanation, alternative or otherwise. And I am not discounting anything. You suggested to “take it into account” and I am asking how one can do that. That’s it.
What’s the difference?
The problem statement is 2956 new genes between highly proximate populations of primates and mice. Entropy is the opposite of gaining function.
What you call magic is something happening you do not understand. The evidence of 2956 new genes is what needs to be explained. This happening from reproduction alone could also be positioned as magic.
You have still not attempted to articulate the problem.
No, it is not.
No, it is not.
It could, but that would be false, because reproduction is a known and very well understood natural phenomenon, the principles and effects of which can be and have been experimentally observed and theoretically modeled down to quantitative predictions of various minutia. Things poofing into existence by the will of an undetectable spirit, on the other hand, is not. You being offended at my calling it magic enough to lash out with “no u” against perfectly mundane and scientifically accessible phenomena is not an unfairness on my part, but an insecurity on yours.
2 Likes
What is your definition of magic?
So, I take it you are not willing to address the question of what it means and/or how one would go about taking into account separate creation? That’s okay, I just want it on record instead of having you sneak out on the question with silly word games, before I declare my own unwillingness to play along with the latter.
2 Likes
There’s my evidence: Bill understands nothing whatsoever about evolution. And he ignores almost every attempt to educate him, too.
4 Likes
Keeping your comment vague means you are using spin.
Wow. Answering an accusation by confirming it.
1 Like
Let me fix this for you.
There’s my evidence: Bill understands nothing whatsoever about evolution. And he ignores almost every attempt to indoctrinate him, too.
There is little evidence of of any correlation yet the theory conflates them.
You’re an idiot.
2 Likes
I asked you a question. John Harshman asked it, too. You are trying to evade it and I’m taking the opportunity to exploit your dishonesty to boost my own standing among the users here, by making yet another public spectacle of your antics. Nothing vague about it. By all means, do carry on.
1 Like
Zou’pe un Uniat.
Both have the same function?
You used the spin word magic and then failed to define it and then accused someone of dishonesty. Nice try 
Let’s let the temperature cool down.
Ork! Ork! Ork!
2 Likes
I know that[1], and you know that. But I was evaluating Bill’s estimate. Does Bill know that?
the quibble that a gene cannot be lost or gained exactly once if it has been lost because to be lost it must have already been gained is too irritating to ment… oops. ↩︎
1 Like
Does overstressing users’ scrollwheels by giving Bill the opportunity to further pollute the board with copious ignovomitry actually boost your standing?
3 Likes
This is my regularly scheduled reminder that, although he is often able to put words together into somewhat meaningful sequences, at the level of normal communication Bill does not actually understand words. As an example, I provide the string of comments below, where Bill not only completely fails to understand the passage he was asked to summarize. He completely fabricates a meaning almost totally unlike what the writer said.
2 Likes
List 20 of them and define “new genes.”
Otherwise, there’s no evidence that there’s any evidence that needs to be explained by anyone except you.
1 Like