Posted on 02/13/2009 8:13:46 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Genetical isn't even a WORD.
==Right... the idiot didn’t even define “genetical richness”.
Don’t get upset just because he has evidence to back up his theory and Darwinian evolution doesn’t. And btw, you might want to consult a dictionary the next time you decide a science term is not a word:
Adj. 1. genetical - of or relating to or produced by or being a gene; “genic combinations”; “genetic code”
genic, genetic
2. genetical - of or relating to the science of genetics; “genetic research”
genetic
An increasing population has increasing genetic diversity or “genetical richness”.
If you think the human population was once two individuals then the maximum genetic diversity at any loci was four. There is a lot more than just four alleles at many loci. Where do you suppose this “genetical richness” came from?
==Genetical isn’t even a WORD.
The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection
University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1TA, United Kingdom
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/154/4/1419
If all species descended from two primordial “kinds” off Noah's Ark, where did all this “genetical richness” come from?
==genetical is not a word that biologists use
Gene Expression to Genetical Genomics
Gene Expression to Genetical Genomics is an open access, peer reviewed journal, which covers all aspects of gene and genome expression and its effect in resulting phenotypes.
http://www.la-press.com/gene-expression-to-genetical-genomics-journal-j137
Did this guy step through a time warp or does he just not speak or understand the language that scientists use?
And he never did define “genetical richness”, nor did he mention that his data chart was merely conceptual. It has been years now, do you suppose he has actually collected data to fill in his chart? What is stopping him?
Hey maybe “genetical” is making a comeback!
Do you now agree that “genetical” is a word that scientists use? If you are still skeptical, I would be more than happy to demonstrate that there are a plethory of scientists who routinely use the word in the scientific literature.
==Hey maybe “genetical” is making a comeback!
The word has been used in the study of genetics since the late 1940s. Here is yet another example. Many more could be given:
Genetical Genomics: Spotlight on QTL Hotspots
Rainer Breitling1, Yang Li1, Bruno M. Tesson1, Jingyuan Fu1,2, Chunlei Wu3, Tim Wiltshire4, Alice Gerrits5, Leonid V. Bystrykh5, Gerald de Haan5, Andrew I. Su3*, Ritsert C. Jansen1,2*
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1000232
==OK, genetical was a word in 1929 when the “Genetical theory” was formulated.
I guess the word goes back even further than I thought. That will teach me for trusting the libs over at Wikipedia.
He wrote an entire book that talks about the subject.
I looked it up in PubMed, it is indeed used (UK usage?), although it is a synonym for genetic which has the advantage of being shorter, recognized by spell check programs, and not making peoples ears prick up with “?”.
So yes, genetical is a word, and it is sometimes used as a synonym for genetic in science.
However your source still did not define what the heck “genetical richness” was. If he means genetic diversity, well that goes up with any expanding population.
Sure he did. From the introduction:
“all evolution as described above is genetically impossible...life started with the creation of ancestral types (for instance the ancestral wolf, the ancestral oxen and the ancestral man)...their variants can never evolve beyond the natural borders of their type...a new species is genetically poorer, or is even a form of degeneration compared to their ancestors...over time genetic information is lost instead of gained
That doesn’t define it, it just says it is lost over time.
Does he mean genome size, gene number, genetic variation?
All can go up and has been observed to go up in expanding populations.
I have to go for an hour or two. I promised my wife I would watch a romantic video entitled “Newton’s Dark Secrets” with her tonight. What a woman!
Do you hold to “new species” triple G?
What would you call that process whereby new species arise from “ancestral types”?
A scientist would define it as evolution.
What would you call it?
From the Free Online Dictionary:
“ge·net·ic (j-ntk) also ge·net·i·cal (—kl)
adj.
1.
a. Of or relating to genetics or genes.
b. Affecting or determined by genes: genetic diseases.
2. Of, relating to, or influenced by the origin or development of something.
3. Linguistics Of or relating to the relationship between or among languages that are descendants of the same protolanguage.
[From Greek genetikos, genitive, from genesis, origin; see genesis.]
ge·neti·cal·ly adv.”
Can you hear me now?
You have OOOOfended the celebrats at The Temple of Darwinism. Poor dead Darwin gets a cheap cake of praise, but the real gifts and goodies of religious belief are reserved for Darwinism, the edifice built on the sands of time, lots of time, as much as necessary for Darwin to evolve into full godship.
So be careful with that algae in your swimming pool, it might be a long lost relative.
Yet, those are not statements of science, they are philosophical statements about science.
Religions are beliefs, with no need for proofs. Attempting to mix the two is silly.
Belief itself is not not a scientifically derived concept, either.
Cordially,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.