I am still working on breaking down your last post into understandable segments for you.  Your statements, so far, do not have a presupposed level of truth to start with.  In order to proceed, you have to prove basic premises used to support what you are saying so far.  I would need a lot more than a wanting to find the truth in my nature.  Remember I was taught to never believe any authority of any kind.  In most homes parents teach beliefs in all sorts of ideas as "presumed true".  My father, in particular taught me to never believe.  He was like The Buddha in that philosophy.

Quote:


There is no way to know what is really going on and "far more DNA" is not an understandable part of DNA , because what is contained in "non expressed" DNA cannot be know until it expresses physically.  It may have another function besides expression.  Science does not know this for fact. The presumption is that it "must be out of date" DNA from evolution.  That can only be presupposed if you already believe in evolution, because it is not founded on any lengthy work with DNA. Considering DNA is a new science and there are Billions of pairs to "watch".  There has not been enough time for enough people to witness enough of how DNA works to make any conclusions like that.

The "perspective" of belief will cause people to force belief on things they really don't understand.  If there is ever the possibility of "gray area" evidence they color it with belief.
If evidence is obvious and extremely clear you cannot "adjust it" to fit the belief. This is called absolute evidence.

If something is absolutely true, then it has absolute evidence that is irrefutable, obvious and easy for a logical person to understand....no "gray areas" to color with belief.

There is no such thing as "random mutations" in the genome.
Random they are not and mutations they are not. 

Random causes for DNA = instant death.  You have to be the most ridiculous teacher I have ever met.
If one change to one tiny base pair can cause sickle cell anemia, then 100 random changes equal instant death.
Are you really that ignorant of the laws of science?
Random is not a scientific word.  I want you to go randomly into your kitchen.  Have someone place five poisons on the counter and five good foods. Put a blindfold on and go in and choose to eat six of them by just guessing what they are and eat six of them.  You will die for sure.  This is one of your ideas of random. 

Quote:

Mapping is not the same as watching for the moment this DNA comes to use.  This has not been done.

We know that many of these "symbols" in the DNA are not know as to thier function, because they never see them function.  If the conditions that caused them to function historically in the passing of traits, are met, then this DNA will express itself.
But you have no idea where that expression came from nor the cause of it, but you have your beliefs.

You need to read my stuff a couple of times.

It is difficult to get past your non founded beliefs, based on no scientific evidence and only your projection of what you think you see.  Evidence that is obvious is very hard to see when you are blinded by belief.

The problem for you is that you have a foundational belief that what is contained in the DNA supports the idea of evolution. 
You have no understanding that DNA is not the cause of DNA. Nothing is the cause of itself.  I find that almost funny.  Good for a chuckle or two, but really it is sad to think that science is THAT retarded.


Semantics of scientific terms is a dodge of the questions.
This an important post for you to understand.  You cannot take someone who has no beliefs into a position of belief without "one way" evidence that has no other possibilities.

In order to prove something each part of the "evidence" must have no other ways of testing it, either by experiment or by logic.  If you have not tested this idea by going back in the genealogy of any test subject and looking for where this "new" DNA came from then you are not a scientist at all.


It does not show anything random nor fluid!  It only supports what is actually seen and documented.  So, far all it shows is what you call junk DNA that you don't know what it is, and DNA that produces the building blocks of the cells.  That the DNA of the offspring is different than the DNA of the parents, but the only place where this DNA comes from is the parents.

Any changes to the DNA as far as I can tell are from environment and long after conception and birth, so that the lineage of creatures can survive as the same creature. 

Any "random" changes to the genetic structures of creatures is equal to instant death.  You already know that one change to the DNA can cause sickle cell anemia. If you allow random changes then there is ONLY the inevitability of death. Don't you realize that creature have genetic structures that identify them, represent the cause of them to exist, and any mutated not controlled random garbage genes will cause death. This is one of those absolute truths that are in the evidence of all creatures that have ever existed that we can test. 

The foundation of the creature never changes until it goes extinct.  It may get bigger, smaller over time, have organ changes needed, have stronger immune systems against the poisons,  but that is only because of the environment, food, weather, water availability, amount of light, intensity of light, etc.  If the ability to survive as the same creature, is exceeded then it goes extinct. This is shown over and over in the fossil record.  Creatures come, remain the same (for up to 50 million years) as the same genus with spread out species from the same genus, then we get extinction as the world changes too much for that genus to continue.  That is what is shown in evidence. There is no lineage of creatures that have ever broken the boundaries of their genetics.

My hypothesis on the chicken teeth (and many other "old features"), for instance,  is that at one time they were needed.  After domestication they don't need them. If all humans die and can't feed the chickens any longer; they revert to the teeth to survive.  In other words (your concept of evolution) is really reversible as needed for the species to survive as the same species. It is not some "one way" towards more complex always. This disproves the basic premises of Evodelusionism.

If you change the food of this "wall lizard" back to the original food the stomach will revert to what is contained in the DNA to be able to eat what is available.  It is not simply a one way path towards more complex as is the theory of evolution. The only thing shown in real evidence is survival and some adaptation, then extinction.

That has nothing to do with this idea that creatures can evolve into an entirely new species with new organs,new legs, or new wings over some immense time. There is no objective evidence for this. It is a fairy tale that has no evidence.

I thought we were discussing evolution not genetics.  Genetics does not support evolution. 

All that I have read on this topic does not show or suggest evolution but only adaptation of living creatures to the changes in and around them.   This only shows or suggests a deep survival "need" built into the "design"  of the creature as the same creature to adapt and survive as the same creature.  It's "purpose" is survival not evolution.

There is no fundamental need for a creature to evolve, but there is an obvious need to survive.

The fossil record as screwed up as it is, does not show evolution of anything.  If you have only dead ends, extinction, and belief, and no continuous trail of "specialtion" that results in entirely new genus and not even in the same family then you cannot prove evolution.  You can't even get close to suggesting it.  You must never fill in gaps with religious mystical magical ideas that there must be evolution.


You must know that before you can proceed you must make a better foundation than this to proceed.  Your foundation requires a "pre belief" which is not contained in the evidence. This pre belief  that this DNA suggests evolution and you have not established that for anyone on here.

In math they start with addition, subtraction, first which is the foundation of that study and it is proved by using "things" to count.  You have not produced any basis for thinking that changes in the DNA - genome represent evolution of any sort.   You have to get some better foundational evidence of the "addition and subtraction" that would make it possible for the "multiplication" to seem real.

You are "suggesting" multiplication but you have not proved and basis for the "multiplication". Do you understand.  You have no empirical evidence to back up your unsubstantiated beliefs so far.   IF you can't do that, then try another angle and stop before you start sounding like a religious nut case.


I do not have any beliefs and I never accept them from anyone.  Not even from all the cartoons of so called creatures from the past that are created from tiny distorted bone fragments.  The TV, Discovery channel, the cartoons, the books do not have any real evidence for evolution with which to take your ideas and "project" them as any sort of evidence that:
All life came from very tiny life that somehow magically evolved into all the variety of life we have now.

The only thing that is implied in all the evidence is a parent genus that adapted and changed over some time, but it never lost its trail of geneology.  No reptile has ever been shown to change into a mammal, for instance.  No fish has ever changed is genetic make up to become a land creature.

If you think that changes in the DNA from one generation to the next is your definition of evolution then it does not fit the "real" definition and you have not shown any evidence at all, just this false idea of "random mutations" that violates the laws of physics.

You still do not know what these changes showing from parents to the offspring mean.  The supposition is from the projection of belief.

They use of the word "symbol" is because the actual understanding of these DNA expressions is not actually understood by anyone.  The foundation of the gene expression is only seen from the surface, and remains a total mystery, until you can establish why a specific type of cell is produced from the base pairs that have not expressed.

This is that "Monarch Butterfly" principle or another unknown to science.

If these changes in the DNA are not some progression into a new species,but are simply passed on genetics only, which they are, then humans don't evolve, they just adapt to survive as the same species.  Which the DNA also would suggest if you have NO pre belief that this is some form of evolution.

I hope you understand this because it is at the base of how people get screwed up with belief and continue to project it on everything, which retards science. 

Belief is a horrible thing in my opinion for any scientist.  As soon as belief becomes in control you are no longer a scientist.

You have not established anything that would even suggest evolution.  So, you may want to think about how to go deeper and establish a foundational "understanding" that fits with the theory of evolution and has no other plausibility.  In order for something to be true, it must have no other plausibility.  That is a rule of science.  All roads tell the same story with no other possibility or it is simply not proven and so you don't believe. And you must not leave any method of testing out of the discussion, simply because you fear it or you don't think it is science, or any reason. There is never any reason not to examine the evidence from other perspectives besides a dumb belief that is totally not proven. That is really as ignorant as a scientist can get.

"A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be." Albert Einstein


Can you please go deeper and find the source of your belief first, because your belief and irrational conclusions are not contained in the evidence.

The evidence can mean other more obvious possibilities that you are not "looking for".  If you eliminate any other plausibility you are not a scientist, but are only seeking to perpetuate belief.

Belief is the number one destroyer of scientific inquiry.

Quote:


From my discussion with you, so far, you are not capable of seeing just what IS there in the DNA. So, who is it that doesn't understand biology?
Making insults is not going to work on here.  "symbols" are used in all of science, in case you are not aware of that.

The photo below is a "symbolic representation" of DNA

You don't really want a conversation do you?

It sure doesn't seem like you do. Especially when you post these 3000 word tirades about how entrenched I am in my belief system and how you're enlightened and above all that. All the while ignoring my questions and making excuses the rest of the time. Or posting a 3d rendering of the chemical structure of DNA and calling it a "symbolic representation", which is nonsense AND was not in spirit with the original point, which is that there are symbols contained IN DNA.

It feels like getting anywhere talking this way would take months.

You really have to stop shouting. You really have to stay on topic. You really have to limit the conversation to concise questions and answers.

I don't mean to insult, but you're just being frustratingly obtuse.

I still don't know what you do and don't know about genetics and cell biology. So we're ill-equipped to talk about anything more complex than that.

Children inherit DNA and cell machinery, NOT traits.
Mutation is a fact. DNA mutates.
DNA determines organization.
It's logical that if DNA can change then the organization can change.

I see that you believe in "adaptation", but from what I've read it's for the wrong reason. You seem to think that organisms have a built-in area of leeway in which they can fluctuate a bit, but that's totally wrong. So we need to get it cleared up.

So, without proselytizing , can you  quote the parts you don't agree with and we can get on with discussion?

Produce evidence for your belief.

What empirical, objective, irrefutable evidence that is always true and only shows evolution; has no other plausibility.  It must contain no opinions!  If you state opinions then I will state all of the other possibilities that you don't look into.

It has been my experience that evolutionists never examine any piece of evidence by any other plausibility and only "see evolution" because they wear, figurative, "evolution glasses" that filters all the evidence and filters out anything that would ruin the belief. This has been my research study on this phenomenon.

In my science if there is any other plausibility that is logical, follows all the evidence that we know, and is just as solid as the "perceived" logic, then the evidence is negated as proof of anything.  It is just stored in the memory and we go on to the next piece of evidence.  Not proven, means not proven.

One by one, I have eliminated all the evidence for evolution as "NOT PROVEN" , "inconclusive" and basically worthless as evidence for anything similar to the theory of evolution. It does not even come close to the use of the scientific method.

If you want to try, we can go over each piece of evidence and I will explain it to you.  You can bring on all the experts you want, and all the videos you want and I will break them down for you as well.  If you want to be free, then you need to open your mind up to what is obvious and not to what has been taught from some form of human political authority.

I understand this far better than most anyone I have ever met.  If you want to learn what I know and improve your knowledge then take advantage of this opportunity I am offering you.  That is as straightforward as I can state it.


If you have the courage of your convictions you will continue to try and "educate" me.  In the process I hope that I can show you all of the logical fallacies in belief and how it destroys all objectivity and the true meaning of science.

Do you understand that the "evidence" in the DNA can be looked at in other ways, that are not "evolution" and that are more consistent with the actual evidence we have?

We only know that there are changes in the DNA and muations are not mutations.

I hate the fact that foundatoinal scientific terms have been bastardized by believers in evolutoin. They bastardize them to make them seem to fit the belief.
There are no "mutations" in the DNA there are only "adaptations and traits".  If you have absolute proof of otherwise then please present it.
For the most part science has no clue how this mechanism works and what is the programming source at the deepest level is.

You present an obvious belief with no foundation that would even come close to what is actually shown in all the evidence.  It is really a weak argument, but if you are a deep believer, then you think it is real.


There are no magical mystical religious reasons for anything in science.  I have never found any.  When someone uses, like you,  mystical answers that avoid and are contrary to the laws of physics, I have to say they are not scientists at all but religious fanatics.

Is this all just hilarious satire?

If so you're a genius!

I honestly can't tell if you're pulling my leg now.