He's just cutting and pasting from other websites. You might as well be speaking to him in Urdu.
:yawn:
Blablaman with another useless contribution.
He's just cutting and pasting from other websites. You might as well be speaking to him in Urdu.
میں بجائے اردو میں بات کروں گا اس سے کہ میں اپنے آپ کو ایک جیسے گھنٹی گھنٹی بنوں.He's just cutting and pasting from other websites. You might as well be speaking to him in Urdu.
میں بجائے اردو میں بات کروں گا اس سے کہ میں اپنے آپ کو ایک جیسے گھنٹی گھنٹی بنوں.
Again 6days, under what set of circumstances?Accumulation of VSDM's in a lineage act like a time bomb. He says the mutation load 'paradox' appears real...it can lead to extinction.
How so?ENCODE research reveals the paradox problem is likely much worse than Kondrashov imagined.
Oh definitely. I seriously doubt 6days happened across this paper as he was perusing a 1995 issue of the Journal of Theoretical Biology.He's just cutting and pasting from other websites.
:chuckle:You might as well be speaking to him in Urdu.
I answered this several times. Kondrashov calls it a paradox that humanity has survived such a high mutation rate, with such a low reproductive rate.Jose Fly said:Again 6days, under what set of circumstances? (Mutation load can lead to extinction)
Kondrashov thought much of our genome was inactive, thus mutations in that region would have no effect. ENCODE has found that some, and perhaps most, of what was previously called junk is performing regulatory functions, thus mutations do have effect.Jose Fly said:How so? (The problem is worse due to ENCODE results)
You also "seriously doubted" I had access to the article as I claimed. Maybe..... it's time for you to reconsider your "serious doubts" about the claims of Jesus on your life?Jose Fly said:I seriously doubt 6days happened across this paper as he was perusing a 1995 issue of the Journal of Theoretical Biology.
He's just cutting and pasting from other websites. You might as well be speaking to him in Urdu.
Hey... Good point..... Do you know about Piltdown? HAI know, right? It's as if the YE Creationist are just playing an endless game of telephone where not only do they cut and paste everything without reading it, but they even end up getting that wrong.
Hey look, it's Piltdown Man!
One more chance....under what conditions does alleged paradox occur? If you've already answered, then you must understand the material, which means it should be no problem at all for you to restate your answer.I answered this several times. Kondrashov calls it a paradox that humanity has survived such a high mutation rate, with such a low reproductive rate.
Can you quote from the paper where he gives his estimate of how much of our genome is functional?Kondrashov thought much of our genome was inactive, thus mutations in that region would have no effect.
Apparently you've forgotten 6days, but we've been over this. Do we need to cover it again?ENCODE has found that some, and perhaps most, of what was previously called junk is performing regulatory functions, thus mutations do have effect.
Exactly how did you come to be aware of this paper?You also "seriously doubted" I had access to the article as I claimed. Maybe..... it's time for you to reconsider your "serious doubts" about the claims of Jesus on your life?
Alleged paradox? Your question has been answered numerous times. (Essentially the paradox is when mutational load is higher than removal rate / selection in a population). You (and Greg who I originally questioned) have not attempted to answer the question we started this with. "How can natural selection, simultaneously select and remove 100 VSDM's per person (and maybe 3 that are deleterious), per generation in a population with a birth rate of about 2? And... I asked if you could answer from science and not answer with beliefs."Jose Fly said:One more chance....under what conditions does alleged paradox occur?
In 1995, evolutionists thought more than 90% of our DNA was 'junk'. Science has revealed their is purpose and design in what was previously dismissed as junk.... research continues.Jose Fly said:Can you quote from the paper where he gives his estimate of how much of our genome is functional?
That's what I thought. You're doing your typical dishonest game where you deflect and dodge a question until you ultimately declare that you've already answered it (but never say what that answer was or where it can be found).Alleged paradox? Your question has been answered numerous times.
Because you're mischaracterizing Kondrashov's paper and misunderstanding what it describes, and from that state of confusion, you ask a question that is nonsense.You (and Greg who I originally questioned) have not attempted to answer the question we started this with. "How can natural selection, simultaneously select and remove 100 VSDM's per person (and maybe 3 that are deleterious), per generation in a population with a birth rate of about 2? And... I asked if you could answer from science and not answer with beliefs."
See? You claimed that "Kondrashov thought much of our genome was inactive, thus mutations in that region would have no effect", but when I ask you to show where he said that, you dodge and evade. I guess you're hoping to play the same dishonest game as above, where you'll keep dodging until enough time has passed that you'll declare "I've already answered".In 1995, evolutionists thought more than 90% of our DNA was 'junk'. Science has revealed their is purpose and design in what was previously dismissed as junk.... research continues.
SUTG.... Barbarian is frustrated, he wants to be relevant but is unable to respond with logic and intellect, so he resorts to lies.
Jose Fly said:See? You claimed that "Kondrashov thought much of our genome was inactive, thus mutations in that region would have no effect", but when I ask you to show where he said that, you dodge and evade. I guess you're hoping to play the same dishonest game as above, where you'll keep dodging until enough time has passed that you'll declare "I've already answered".
The fact that you have to repeatedly resort to that sort of behavior speaks volumes about you 6days. You should really think on that.
Still dodging. I'd ask you to quote from the paper where he estimates the amount of non-functional DNA, but you'll just keep dodging, won't you?You aren't being logical. Surely you aren't suggesting Kondrashov knew mutations in the 'junk' were actually deleterious? We now know 'junk' was a misnomer. Mutations can and do have a deleterious effect in non-coding regions of DNA, which previously was dismissed as non functional. Kondrashov simply could not have know the 'paradox' problem was bigger than he imagined.
Do you really think 6days is going to truthfully answer a question about the contents of a paper he posted to support his assertion(s) about VSDMs? All 6days is going do in any reply is misrepresent outdated information with canned quotes from creationist web sites. He will NEVER "quote from the paper".Still dodging. I'd ask you to quote from the paper where he estimates the amount of non-functional DNA, but you'll just keep dodging, won't you?
You aren't being logical. Surely you aren't suggesting Kondrashov knew mutations in the 'junk' were actually deleterious? We now know 'junk' was a misnomer. Mutations can and do have a deleterious effect in non-coding regions of DNA, which previously was dismissed as non functional. Kondrashov simply could not have know the 'paradox' problem was bigger than he imagined.
Imagine how much less fun TOL would be if the fundys joined the 21st century and bothered to learn some science and understood.
Guess there are no decent universities where they live.