Expressing bad attitudes to historians and critical scholarship without realizing it

[T_aquaticus]

@RichardG

No, you have proved more than once that you do not understand what I am saying or how I can criticise you or science.

You said God reusing building blocks would produce a nested hierarchy. If you understood what a nested hierarchy is you wouldn’t make that claim. Only someone uninformed about biology would claim that.

@RichardG

You have data and you use concepts, but you do not (seem) understand what those concepts are in terms of uderstanding.

You are full of flash illustrations like the map or picture of DNA comparrison. But you cannot see what the concepts involved are.

I understand all of the concepts involved. Which concepts do you think I don’t understand?

@RichardG

Is proof that you have no idea where chance comes into ToE.

I do know. It comes in during mutation, the creation of genetic variation.

@RichardG

Natural Selection is reactionary., It can only select from the chosice it is given.

And this is a problem how?

The concept you don’t seem to understand is that the beneficial changes will be selected for and the deleterious changes will be selected against. This is how lineages adapt over time. It isn’t by chance but by selection.

You can think of it like gravel being passed over a sieve. The rocks smaller than the wholes in the sieve pass through while the rocks larger than the holes in the sieve don’t pass through. You end up with two piles of non-randomly distributed sizes. Chance alone can’t do that. You need a filter. Natural selection acts as a filter, kicking out bad mutations and amplifying good ones. The mutations that are neither good nor bad fix at random. If there was no natural selection then both beneficial and deleterious mutations would fix at random as well, and this would result in a lack of adaptation, or at least rates of adaptation that are way, way slower than what we see.

Take the rock pocket mouse.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0431157100

The black phenotype is due to 1 to 4 mutations in a gene called mc1r. When we look at the geographic distribution of those mutations they are non-random. The mutations for the black phenotype are limited to small volcanic areas with black basalt. Why? Natural selection.

@RichardG

A chimp has a 2% variance from huumans. 2% of what 10,000? 100,00? (I know you can give me the right answer but it doesn’t afffect my argument.)

And I’m the one who doesn’t understand concepts? Really???

Here are a few excerpts from the chimp genome paper where they compared the chimp and human genomes.

Here we present a draft genome sequence of the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes ). Through comparison with the human genome, we have generated a largely complete catalogue of the genetic differences that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor, constituting approximately thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements.
. . .

• Single-nucleotide substitutions occur at a mean rate of 1.23% between copies of the human and chimpanzee genome, with 1.06% or less corresponding to fixed divergence between the species.
• Insertion and deletion (indel) events are fewer in number than single-nucleotide substitutions, but result in ∼1.5% of the euchromatic sequence in each species being lineage-specific.
  Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome | Nature

If 35 million substitutions represents a 1.23% of the genome, then that would be 2.8 billion bases. That represents the number of bases they sequenced in the chimp genome for the 2005 paper. At that point in time, that represented about 95% of the total chimp genome. The actual size for both the human and chimp haploid genome is right around 3 billion. The diploid genome would be double that, so about 6 billion.

@RichardG

You need to identify the concepts iinvolved in ToE.

I have.

@RichardG

You need to understand the concept of irriducability.

Take a part away and the system stops functioning. Not that hard to understand.

@RichardG

You need to understand the concept of Random change It is not just the data that matters it is what you do with it and also how it is made.

I understand these concepts just fine. I even understand the mechanisms that cause random mutations, something you claimed science doesn’t know.

@RichardG

It is more than sequences. It is more than plain succession. It involves such things and dominance and resseive.

Dominance and recessive doesn’t matter when you are comparing the sequence differences between species. Perhaps you don’t understand these concepts?

@RichardG

And that is your assumptiion from ignorance.

Then show me why I need to know the function of a stretch of DNA in order to count the number of differences that separate them.

@RichardG

It is so simple for you! Things just slowly change and “Invent” DNA sequences that just so happen to work and form new body parts or specifications.

That’s what the evidence demonstrates.

@RichardG

It’s so simple. You hae identifie sequences that match so they must be related

False. You don’t understand the concepts.

It isn’t simple similarity. It is a nested hierarchy.

Mere similarity between organisms is not enough to support macroevolution; the nested classification pattern produced by a branching evolutionary process, such as common descent, is much more specific than simple similarity.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

On top of that, I have shown you the differences between the human genome and the genomes of other primates. There is an excess of transition mutations. This is also evidence of common ancestry. It is both the differences and the nested hierarchy that demonstrate relatedness.

Again, from 140 years ago a person who understands these concepts better than you do:

Now, since the days of Linnæus this principle has been carefully followed, and it is by its aid that the tree-like system of classification has been established. No one, even long before Darwin’s days, ever dreamed of doubting that this system is in reality, what it always has been in name, a natural system. What, then, is the inference we are to draw from it? An evolutionist answers, that it is just such a system as his theory of descent would lead him to expect as a natural system. For this tree-like system is as clear an expression as anything could be of the fact that all species are bound together by the ties of genetic relationship. If all species were separately created, it is almost incredible that we should everywhere observe this progressive shading off of characters common to larger groups, into more and more specialized characters distinctive only of smaller and smaller groups. At any rate, to say the least, the law of parsimony forbids us to ascribe such effects to a supernatural cause, acting in so whimsical a manner, when the effects are precisely what we should expect to follow from the action of a highly probable natural cause.
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution, by George J. Romanes, M.A., LL.D., F.R.S.

@RichardG

Stop telling me I know nothing. What I know youu clearly do not. And you do not value it because it does not fit with your “Scientific method”

I do not value your claims because they are either unsupported by evidence or contrary to known facts.