by cofty 266 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
I understood all of your misunderstandings atrapado.
You don't yet grasp some absolute basics of science despite all our efforts. Until you do nobody can help you. The fact you are asking for "formal proofs" in biology is embarrassing.
If you want a suggested reading list just ask.
By the way, if you are going to try to insult somebody by declaring them to be "to dense" you should spell "too" correctly.
exaclty
(Eg-sac-al-tee)
Perhaps the answer to the species problem will be a way of describing a species by the relative nature of its genome
We have 3 billion basepairs. About 32 million basepairs code for proteins - that leaves 98% that doesn't. Other molecules such as miRNA's and siRNA's are being discovered that have a huge impact on the expression or suppression of other genes. Some of these are even encoded in endogenous-retroviruses that infected our ancestors.
The genome is not anything like a blueprint - that is a terrible analogy. It is perhaps more like a recipe where small changes in ingredients or methods can have big effects on the results. A change of a single letter in a genome of 3 billion letters can have massive consequences.
Added to that fact we all have many differences between our genomes that make us unique.
The idea of reading a genome and deciding what is and isn't human in evolutionary terms is a pipe-dream.
I am sorry about my spelling typo
Don't apologise for your numerous spelling and grammatical errors. Apologise for ignoring all attempts at helping you understand some basics and for resorting to personal attacks.
cofty personal attacks are your thing I am just following your example. Don't be so hypocrite.
You say "A change of a single letter in genome of 3 billion..." are all bits significant? Just because some are and some are not and because we don't understand what change them means doesn't mean there could be a way.
So we don't know how to read the genome to decide was is human and what is not. Granted. Does that mean there is no way? Lets see 2^3billion is so big that we could say for practical reasons going through all those posibilities is impossible. We might not be able to do it ever. We might never find a way but I failed to see how without a doubt you can say there is no way period.
All you are saying is "is too hard therefore impossible."
Viviane you asked why draw the line where I did. It was a suggestion. The line was drawed becaused it fit the data and a pattern was found. Why use the definition of species when is flawed? You have horses and donkeys mating and some of the offsprings are not always sterile. If you take the definition of species that they can only mate with their own species and produce only that species then mathematically you could prove that a species could NEVER produce another species therefore prooving evolution doesn't exits. Since we know that is not the case the definition of species if flawed. Start with a wrong premise no wonder is impossible to find the first human(s).
Mating is only one way to make that distinction. There are multiple ways to define a species, none of them exact. You are proposing an arbitrary method based on an impossible data set to collect without showing why that data set would be the right one and not showing why it is better than the existing methods, all while ignoring the fact that there was no first human.
atrapado - Show me where I have made a personal attack against you or apologise for the slur .
So we don't know how to read the genome to decide was is human and what is not.
No - page 11 and you STILL haven't a clue.
We have no way and no need or desire to start with such a definition of human. It would be a pointless fool's errand.
We could decide that we will only call something human if it is over 5 feet 4 inches tall or if it has blonde hair or blue eyes or if it can roll it's toungue. WHAT WOULD BE THE POINT?
You have entirely missed the point of a very simple and informative 4 minute video. Well done.
