Replies

"That "bizarre claim" is research results, sorry if you can't accept where the evidence leads." - Dan Day

No apology is required.

Oh -- happy in your disability, eh?

The evidence at hand supports my analogy; it does not invalidate it.

What's that sound I hear? Oh, it's just the evidence bouncing off your forehead with a sharp "ping".

The sequence of base pairs inside a gene is critical to its final output, and this can be confirmed by randomly rearranging large numbers of codons in any animated gene and then watching the output.

Is there any reason you keep rambling on about this, despite the fact that I already know it well?

Back to my point about the sequence of base pairs being critical, it's probably worth pointing out to you that the entire Human Genome Project is about mapping, sequencing, and identifying what the genes do.

Thank you, Mr. Obvious.

Ergo, even Evolutionists, at least the modern ones, should know that sequencing is critical to our understanding of genes as well as to the performance of those genes.

Are you finished yet?

Stop wasting time, of course sequence is important. I already stated this several times. So stop the long-winded exposition of the obvious.

What you seem to be trying to avoid dealing with, however, is that a *particular* sequence is seldom *required*. That is, there are often many alternative sequences -- some quite different, some differing by only a single base pair -- which can produce the same results.

You keep trying to sweep this under the rug because it makes evolution more easily possible. Your earlier posts tried to imply that evolution was implausible because a single change will necessarily cause the function of a gene to come crashing down. But it quite simply is *NOT* true. A sequence change *can* change or destroy function -- but it's not in any way guaranteed.

So cut the games where you restate the trivially obvious and fail to address the more problematic points for your position.

"What you seem to be trying to avoid dealing with, however, is that a *particular* sequence is seldom *required*. That is, there are often many alternative sequences -- some quite different, some differing by only a single base pair -- which can produce the same results. You keep trying to sweep this under the rug because it makes evolution more easily possible."

Oh please, surely you can at least grasp the math involved in statistical probabilities.

The alternative sequences are far too small in number to substantially alter the probabilities as stated in the math for this thread. Whether you have one valid sequence in 10^41 or 20,000,000 valid sequences, your mathematical probability for randomly hitting any of them is still essentially 0.