Jump to content

Sione's off-topic alien chatter


Recommended Posts

People, you missed the point...

 

It is not about God as a creator, but about Aliens.

 

The point is that it looks as if someone was MESSING AROUND with human genome by genetically engineering it, not as if it was perfectly created. In that respect, yes there is evidence in the code that suggest some "artificial modifications" happened at various points and can be tracked down the time line. Zulu Shaman Credo Mutwa could tell you more about it if you look it up on YouTube. That is, if you wanna know where did humans get reptilian brain and what's up with lizard tail on human embryo.

Link to post
Share on other sites
People, you missed the point...

 

It is not about God as a creator, but about Aliens.

 

The point is that it looks as if someone was MESSING AROUND with human genome by genetically engineering it, not as if it was perfectly created. In that respect, yes there is evidence in the code that suggest some "artificial modifications" happened at various points and can be tracked down the time line. Zulu Shaman Credo Mutwa could tell you more about it if you look it up on YouTube. That is, if you wanna know where did humans get reptilian brain and what's up with lizard tail on human embryo.

 

Sione - Let's see a peer reviewed source. You can hardly prove the claim that humans were created by aliens based on a youtube video by a Zulu shaman, okay?

 

Oh wait... Not relevant to the thread anyway. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

6_weeks_pregnant.png- "...the backbone is a common structure among all vertebrates such as fish, reptiles and mammals, and the backbone also appears as one of the earliest structures laid out in all vertebrate embryos. [pic]Human embryo at six weeks gestational age, i.e. four weeks after fertilization. "

 

Sione - Let's see a peer reviewed source. You can hardly prove the claim that humans were created by aliens based on a youtube video by a Zulu shaman' date=' okay?

 

Oh wait... Not relevant to the thread anyway.

[/quote']

 

I said this was MY POINT: The point is that it looks as if someone was MESSING AROUND with human genome by genetically engineering it, not as if it was perfectly created. The rest is Credo's point, if you care to believe it. Of course it is relevant, how would you otherwise realize it was not about God? "God" was not mentioned or related to in any way in that paper and yet all of you thought it was about God. Do you agree iNow it is not about God?

 

 

Now, I will talk to you and answer all your questions, but you have to answer my questions too and you need to argument your statements, logical explanation will suffice. So, do not state it is not relevant unless you can argument your statement, especially since it obviously is relevant.

 

I can give you peer reviewed, but can you explain why are you imperative I need to prove anything here, why could I just not pass the information that I hear or read in the newspapers and post it here, share the info with you? Why could I just not say whatever my opinion is and then you research or dismiss, as you please. Why do you think all the truth is on TV and other peer reviewed source? The scientists question everything, even the truth itself!

 

 

Anyway, why would I even want to prove stuff like that, it could cause panic. Why don't you just watch it and tell me what you think? Alternatively, you may as well ignore it, I do not require from you to believe anything.

Edited by Sione
Link to post
Share on other sites
God was not mentioned in that paper and yet all of you thought it was about God.

 

It's from a 'journal' published by the Discovery Institute, whose sole purpose is to promote creationism. Ergo it's about God/creationism.

 

That is, if you wanna know where did humans get reptilian brain and what's up with lizard tail on human embryo.

 

It's called 'evolution'.

 

The point is that it looks as if someone was MESSING AROUND with human genome by genetically engineering it, not as if it was perfectly created.

 

No, it doesn't.

 

I can give you peer reviewed source, but can you explain why are you imperative I need to prove anything here, why could I just not pass the information that I hear or read in the newspapers and post it here, share with you?

 

Because you're arguing a point, therefore you need to provide evidence. And because newpapers are a crap source - only pree-review journals have the data and information needed to evaluate the claim.

 

Why do you think all the truth is on TV and other peer reviewed source?

 

TV is not a peer-reviewed source.

 

And peer reviewed sources aren't the final arbiter of truth, but they contain detailed reports of the actual scientific methods and result, meaning we can see for ourselves.

 

Mokele

Link to post
Share on other sites
I said this was MY POINT: The point is that it looks as if someone was MESSING AROUND with human genome by genetically engineering it, not as if it was perfectly created.

 

Actually, no. You said there was "evidence in the code" which suggest "artificial mutations." That's why I quoted you.

 

Now, you will provide peer reviewed sources supporting your claim of the existence of that evidence, or you will retract your assertion and bow out of the conversation maturely. Those are your only two options at this juncture. Which will it be?

Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, do not be fooled that peer reviewed scientific papers will mention "Aliens". Learn history and understand this:

- "All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed, then it is violently opposed, finally it is accepted as self-evident." (Schopenhauer)

 

In any case, insisting on validity of restricted source makes it possible for censorship of information, which is why I compared it with TV and media. Indoctrination by "popular media" is as powerful as religious dogma. There is nothing wrong to talk about aliens, even if they do not exist, or is there?

 

 

Actually, no. You said there was "evidence in the code" which suggest "artificial mutations." That's why I quoted you.

 

Now, you will provide peer reviewed sources supporting your claim of the existence of that evidence, or you will retract your assertion and bow out of the conversation maturely. Those are your only two options at this juncture. Which will it be?

 

Hahaa, Ok. I submit, this is, after all, you best objection so far!

 

Have you ever played "The Secret of Monkey Island" and Insult wordfighting?

 

 

I will agree to your objection, but please, as a future reference note that you missed the part that says: "In that respect", which meant that I was rephrasing the first sentence and please note quotation marks - "artificial modifications" - the meaning of which was in the first sentence.

 

 

Anyway here is my reply to you:

- My point is that paper was not talking about God, but about UNEXPLAINED, SEEMINGLY ARTIFICIAL "patterns" in the code. And your 1st peer reviewed source is that very paper itself. Now, would you actually care to read it?

 

To rephrase it:

- Evolution does not explain some code sequences, and this is not in support of God, but rather to prompt further scientific study. You do not seem to know anything about this, so please do some research and articulate what in particular do you not agree with?

 

 

 

What else would you like to disagree about... Reptilian Shape-Shifting Aliens?

 

 

 

 

It's from a 'journal' published by the Discovery Institute' date=' whose sole purpose is to promote creationism. Ergo it's about God/creationism.

[/quote']

 

T-Rex, eh? I see why did you get upset ;-)

 

Perhaps they copied it out of somewhere or were only ones ready to publish it, ergo your conclusion is hasted. You understand creationists can and will use any argument "against" evolution?

 

 

Do you think "MESSING AROUND" at certain historical points with genetic engineering is something God or Aliens would do?

 

 

It's called 'evolution'.

 

Perhaps, but surely we need to consider every theory, ignorance is not scientifically wise. So, based on what exactly do you discredit Credo's story about Aliens? Please, I do not know what to believe, can you help me?

 

 

The point is that it looks as if someone was MESSING AROUND with human genome by genetically engineering it, not as if it was perfectly created.

No, it doesn't.

 

And your argument is? Your peer reviewed sources?

 

 

You have to be careful here, or iNow could tell you something like this:

- "Now, you will provide peer reviewed sources supporting your claim of the existence of that evidence, or you will retract your assertion and bow out of the conversation maturely. Those are your only two options at this juncture. Which will it be?"

 

 

 

Because you're arguing a point, therefore you need to provide evidence. And because newpapers are a crap source - only pree-review journals have the data and information needed to evaluate the claim.

 

I think you misunderstood something, what is it you think I claim?

 

I did not mean to argue any points, I wanted to tell what everyone missed to notice ABOUT the PAPER, and see opinions after it is understood what paper is actually talking about. I am being pressed to argue something that was said in the paper while no one actually have even read the paper, sheesh!

Edited by Sione
Link to post
Share on other sites
And your 1st peer reviewed source is that very paper itself.

Ah, yes. I forgot I was dealing with a troll, and that I should have been more specific. The request was for a peer-reviewed scientific journal. I took this to be implicitly understood since this thread exists in the Evolution, Morphology, and Exobiology subsection of the Biology forum. The request was for a peer-reviewed scientific journal, despite the fact that I did not use the word "scientific" in my original response to you.

 

The paper in the OP, which you have just asserted to be your "peer-reviewed source" was presented in the "Journal of Creation." The "Journal of Creation" is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

 

Here is where the article appeared:

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5884/

 

 

They self-describe this journal thusly:

Our role is to support the church in proclaiming the truth of the Bible and thus its gospel message. We provide real-world answers to the most-asked questions in the vital area of creation/evolution

 

 

And in the "What We Do" section of their website:

Each office has its own speaking staff (who generally perform other functions) whose role it is to go out to where the people are and reach them with the message of the truth and authority of the Bible, and its relevance to the real world. We’ve found that an extremely effective way to get this message out into the population in general, and thus to increase the number of people getting converted, etc. is to arm and equip Christians.

 

 

Finally, in the "Priorities" section of their mission statement, the very first of two states this:

The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.

 

 

Now, even if I accepted your source as valid (which I don't), it still does not support your assertion (the one for which citations were requested) that there was "evidence in the genetic code of artificial modifications." I just checked. Nor does it support your suggestion that it is actually talking about aliens.

 

So, you really lose on all fronts of this particular argument, and I see that you rightly conceded, so we're done now.

 

You are a troll, as we are now completely off topic... again...

 

 

 

You do not seem to know anything about this, so please do some research and articulate what in particular do you not agree with that was discussed in the paper?

Just curious. Why the question mark after your flame-bait? It seems obvious to anyone with even a first grade understanding of grammer and English that your sentence was not a question.

Edited by iNow
Link to post
Share on other sites

iNow,

 

You are funny.

 

You BELIEVED WHAT CREATIONIST SAID, good for you.

 

Next time read the paper and references:

1.Toby,J.G.and Spring,J.,Genetic redundancy in vertebrates:polyploidy

and persistence of genes encoding multidomain proteins, Trends in Genet.

2.de la Chapelle,A.,Sistonen,P.,Lehvaslaiho,H.,Ikkala,E.and Juvonen,

E., Familial erythrocytosis genetically linked to erythropoietin receptor

Easteal,S.

and Beggs, A.H., A common non-sense mutation results in alpha-actinin

3 deficiency in the general population:evidence for genetic redundancy

4.Truman,R.and Borger,P.,Why the shared mutations in the hominidae

exon X GULO pseudogene are not evidence for common descent,J.

5.The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium,Initial sequence

of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome,

6.Galvani,A.P.and Novembre,J.,The evolutionary history of the CCR5-

7 :302 –309,2005.

Genetics of Lung Function Decline and COPD

p.127,2008.

Pseudogenization of the tumor-growth promoter

Posfai,J.,

Blattner, F.RR. and Posfai, G., Engeneering a reduced Escherichia coli

10.Pennisi,E.,The biology of genomes meeting:disposable DNA puzzles

11.Bouche,N.and Bouchez,D.,Arabidopsis gene knockout:phenotypes

12.Conant,G.C.and Wagner,A.,Duplicate genes and robustness to transient

gene knock-downs in Caenorhabditis elegans , Proc. Biol. Sci. 27 :89 –96,

2004.

13.Richt,J.A.et al., Production of cattle lacking the prion protein, Nature

Biotech. 25 :132 –138,2007.

14.Fan,Y.,Sirotkin,A.,Russell,R.G.,Ayalla,J.and Scoultchi,A.I.,Individual

somatic H1 subtypes are dispensable for mouse development even in mice

lacking the H1(0)replacement subtype,Mol. Cell. Biol.21 :7933 –7943,

2001.

15.Quoted from:Pearson,H.,Surviving a knockout blow,Nature 415 :8 –9,

2002.

16.Hurst,L.D.and Smith,N.G.C.,Do essential genes evolve slowly?Curr.

Biol.9 :747 –750,1999.

17.Hahn,M.W,Conant,G.C.and Wagner,A.,Molecular evolution in large

genetic networks:does connectivity equal constraint?J. Mol. Biol.

58 :203 –211,2004.

18.Nachman,M.W.and Crowell,S.L.,Estimate of the mutation rate per

nucleotide n humans, Genetics 156 :297 –304,2000.

19.Ohno,S.,Evolution by ene Duplication ,Springer,New York,1970.

20.Ohno,S.,Evolutional reason for having so much junk DNA;in:Modern

Aspects of Cytogenetics: Constitutive Heterochromatin in Man , Pfeiffer,

R.A.(Ed.),F.K.Schattauer Verlag,Stuttgart,Germany,pp.169 –173,

1973.

21.Winzeler,E.A.et al .,,Functional characterization of the S. cerevisiae

genome by gene deletion and parallel analysis, Science 285 :901 –906,

1999.

22. Wagner, A., Robustness against mutations in genetic networks of yeast,

Nat. enet.24 :355 –361,2000.

23.Kitami,T.and Nadeau,J.H.,Biochemical networking contributes more

to enetic uffering n human and mouse metabolic pathways han does

gene uplication, Nat. enet.32 :191 –194,2002.

24.Barabasi,A.,and Bonabeau,L.E.,Scale-free networks,Sci. Am.

288 :60 –69,2003.

 

 

 

IS TWENTY FOUR ENOUGH ?

 

Author:

Peter Borger has an M.Sc. in Biology (HHons biochemistry

and molecular genetics) and a Ph.DD in Medical Sciences

from the University of Groningen, The Netherlands. He is

currently working on the cellular and molecular aspects of

pulmonary diseases, such as sthma and COPD, nd s an

expert on the molecular biology of signal transduction and

gene xpression.

 

 

 

You do not seem to know anything about this' date=' so please do some research and articulate what in particular do you not agree with that was discussed in the paper?

[/quote']

 

Just curious. Why the question mark after your flame-bait? It seems obvious to anyone with even a first grade understanding of grammer and English that your sentence was not a question.

 

You mean grammar, eh?

Hahaaa, will you stop insulting yourself?

 

 

And it is not grammar, but semantics and LOGIC, my angry friend! Are you drunk?

Question is the second part of the sentence, observe: - what in particular do you not agree with that was discussed in the paper?

 

 

I answered many of your questions about your confusion regarding my statement, will you at least tell us what is it you disagree about in particular?

 

 

 

 

So, you really lose on all fronts of this particular argument, and I see that you rightly conceded, so we're done now.

 

Well, I'm glad I could at least point out THE PAPER WAS NOT ABOUT GOD, which was my only point. The rest was you arguing against what you imagined I claimed, thanks for laughs. Are you and Mr. Skeptic actually one and the same troll? You sure do appreciate each other, politeness between you two is amusing, identical and opposite to anger towards me.

Edited by Sione
Link to post
Share on other sites
People, you missed the point...

 

It is not about God as a creator, but about Aliens.

 

The point is that it looks as if someone was MESSING AROUND with human genome by genetically engineering it, not as if it was perfectly created. In that respect, yes there is evidence in the code that suggest some "artificial modifications" happened at various points and can be tracked down the time line. Zulu Shaman Credo Mutwa could tell you more about it if you look it up on YouTube. That is, if you wanna know where did humans get reptilian brain and what's up with lizard tail on human embryo.

 

Sione,

 

The article is being published in the "Journal of Creation," not, "Journal of Zorba the Hutt."

 

260px-JabbaTheHutt.jpg

Courtesy of Jorba the Hutt

 

and...

 

The paper's references and credentials mean nothing if the author can't make a good argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The paper's references and credentials mean nothing if the author can't make a good argument.

 

I know of better arguments, if you can first point out the part you are referring to? Meanwhile, one of the more peculiar arguments, thought not very scientific, is Credo Mutwa story, do you know about it?

 

 

My point is that this should be discussion of what is said in the paper, not anti religious Creationist-Darwinist argument, since paper does not point towards any creation described in the Bible, but describes abrupt historical alterations that just do not fit proposed theory.

 

Believe what you will, but I do not think the guy who wrote the paper believes in God himself. He is practitioner and actually did all the experiment himself, the guy is EXPERT and he tells you what he OBSERVES, you are free to try and find better conclusion, any idea?

 

 

And if you do not believe his experiments and observations, nor all the references, then Google it and you will see the DATA and OBSERVATIONS are true. Conclusion is up to you and me, for everyone to give a best try at it, discuss it.

Edited by Sione
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sione, for your information, Peter Borger is an creationist. A very strong believer in creationism. But he claims to get his believes through his observations in science.

 

Here are a few more of his articles.

 

Genetic code optimization part 1

Genetic code optimization part 2

Ultra Conserved regions megaproblems for evolution

Another article on Genetic Redundancy

Edited by bigore
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sione' date=' for your information, Peter Borger is an creationist. A very strong believer in creationism. But he claims to get his believes through his observations in science.

[/quote']

 

Thank you, I submit.

 

Then, guy is crazy and will go to hell like the rest of the religious heretics, failed to recognize the trickery of false God of Three Bibles. Lucifer, the Bringer of Light will punish them with nonexistence. He has some good arguments thought, but then he is probably not aware of "my" arguments... now, I do not mean to scare unsuspected younglings, so I would like to warn that my arguments will lead to conclusions about Reptilian Shape-Shifting Aliens. The story is not for the faint of heart... I do not think people here can handle it, even thought it is scientifically documented in peer reviewed papers.

Edited by Sione
Link to post
Share on other sites
I know of better arguments, if you can first point out the part you are referring to? Meanwhile, one of the more peculiar arguments, thought not very scientific, is Credo Mutwa story, do you know about it?

 

 

My point is that this should be discussion of what is said in the paper, not anti religious Creationist-Darwinist argument, since paper does not point towards any creation described in the Bible, but describes abrupt historical alterations that just do not fit proposed theory.

 

Believe what you will, but I do not think the guy who wrote the paper believes in God himself. He is practitioner and actually did all the experiment himself, the guy is and EXPERT and he tells you what he OBSERVES, you are free to try and find better conclusion, any idea?

 

 

And if you do not believe his experiments and observations, nor all the references, then Google it and you will see the DATA and OBSERVATIONS are true. Conclusion is up to you and me, for everyone to give a best try at it, discuss it.

 

1. I'm not convinced that you are concerned about the paper's content at all, so I'm not going into it.

 

2. It is be too easy and useless to make arguments based solely on opinion as everyone's got one. Even Credo Mutwa.

 

3. "The guy is and EXPERT and he tells you what he OBSERVES." So are we.

 

4. I do believe that his references are credible and real. But cherry picking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking) is not good science.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, now you scare me.

 

Please give us the peer-reviewed papers that points to the alien conclusion.


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
Thank you, I submit.

 

Then, guy is crazy and will go to hell like the rest of the religious heretics, failed to recognize the trickery of false God of Three Bibles. Lucifer, the Bringer of Light will punish them with nonexistence. He has some good arguments thought, but then he is probably not aware of "my" arguments... now, I do not mean to scare unsuspected younglings, so I would like to warn that my arguments will lead to conclusions about Reptilian Shape-Shifting Aliens. The story is not for the faint of heart... I do not think people here can handle it, even thought it is scientifically documented in peer reviewed papers.

 

This alien race should then come into existence darwinian way? If another alien race can come about in darwinian ways, why should we think we can't? Is this because of evidence, or...? Of isthis alien race created by a God?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok' date=' now you scare me.

 

Please give us the peer-reviewed papers that points to the alien conclusion.

[/quote']

 

 

Ok, hold on I need to Google it.

 

You can help if you like, look for papers that talk about some abrupt modifications, throughout historical time-line back as far as the first fossils, that do not fit the model of natural selection or evolution. I'm not sure how to look for it either, I researched the subject quite some time ago and I do not have any links ready. However, eventually I will find some keywords and then I will be able to find all the rest of relevant papers, feel free to help me if you got the sweet of what I'm suggesting here.

 

 

In the meantime,

- would you describe the peculiarities that Borger refers to as "designed", like something God of Three Books of Terror would do or does it look more like some messy business of some crazy alien race interested in genetic engineering?

 

 

This alien race should then come into existence darwinian way? If another alien race can come about in darwinian ways, why should we think we can't? Is this because of evidence, or...? Of isthis alien race created by a God?

 

There is no such thing as omnipotent deity.

Yes you are right, but instead of "darwinian way" I'd rather call it "spontaneous emergence".

 

 

1. I'm not convinced that you are concerned about the paper's content at all' date=' so I'm not going into it.

 

2. It is be too easy and useless to make arguments based solely on opinion as everyone's got one. Even Credo Mutwa.

 

3. "The guy is and EXPERT and he tells you what he OBSERVES." So are we.

 

4. I do believe that his references are credible and real. But cherry picking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking) is not good science.

[/quote']

 

I agree with all that, what would you like to talk about then?

 

 

In the meantime let me ask you this same question,

- would you describe the peculiarities that Borger refers to as "designed", like something God of Three Books of Terror would do or does it look more like some messy business of some crazy alien race interested in genetic engineering?

Edited by Sione
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with all that, what would you like to talk about then?

 

None, if not necessary.

 

In the meantime let me ask you this same question,

- would you describe the peculiarities that Borger refers to as "designed", like something God of Three Books of Terror would do or does it look more like some messy business of some crazy alien race interested in genetic engineering?

 

I don't know about the Three Books of Terror, and there's no alien race on Earth. But I can choose from only two of the choices, neither of which are valid. That's called a "false dilemma." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy) That's not very different from the way creationists think. For example, they might ask: are humans monkeys, or have God molded them out of bubble gum? You see, the fact that humans are not monkeys does not suggest that humans are made out of bubble gum.

Edited by mrburns2012
Consecutive posts merged.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me just add that Credo Mutwa story is part of my argument, not in regards to aliens at all, but more to draw some historical/archeological conclusions. In fact you can disregard the whole alien business in Credo's story, the story is 90% about history. It is very, very, very interesting story that you can watch on YouTube. He is well known after his books that were all very successful commercially.

 

If you do not want to believe it, it is still A++ "Science Fiction" story. Credo is fantastic narrator and you will find it hard not to believe it. It is very good story about colonizations of Africa, about World Wars, Religion and Bloodlines. I would like some opinions about it, because if everyone disregard this as nonsense without even looking at it, then it is not worth arguing about.

 

 

In the meantime let me ask you this same question' date='

- would you describe the peculiarities that Borger refers to as "designed", like something God of Three Books of Terror would do or does it look more like some messy business of some crazy alien race interested in genetic engineering?

[/quote']

I don't know about the Three Books of Terror, and there's no alien race on Earth. But I can choose from only two of the choices, neither of which are valid. That's called a "false dilemma." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy) That's not very different from the way creationists think. For example, they might ask: are humans monkeys, or have God molded them out of bubble gum? You see, the fact that humans are not monkeys does not suggest that humans are made out of bubble gum.

 

You talk about everything but what I asked you.

 

"Three Books of Terror" are Torah, Bible and Koran, they all one and the same book, did you not know? Anyway, I was referring to what you call "God", Christian God probably. Why all the trouble about explaining "false dilemma", you could provide valid choice yourself. Please, what is your explanation?

 

Did you not say this:

EDIT: By the way, duplicated genes can be harmful.

A well known disorder is Trisomy 21. People with the condition have a significantly reduced fitness.

EDIT 2: Without examining data he's using, that's a perfectly reasonable argument.

 

 

None, if not necessary.

 

I'm asking you - what do you want to talk about?

Edited by Sione
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is that if there is no selection pressure on the redundant genes?

 

You've provided a good summary:

 

The question is: are there's enough data in his paper (references and all) to support all (or any) of those conclusions? The answer is no. The section "Molecular switches" sounds bogus to me.

 

No' date=' what you quoted was the question to which you again avoided to give answer.

 

"The answer is no" - BECAUSE - "The section "Molecular switches" sounds bogus to me.", your argument sounds empty to me.

 

 

He basically claims that redundant genes KO mice show no observable phenotype throughout the paper. But when there are some, he shrugs his shoulders and pretty much says, "Well, they didn't die. That's good enough."

 

Everyone is a critic, thank you.

Can you please provide the true explanation for the data?

 

 

Are you not the same person who said this:

 

EDIT: By the way, duplicated genes can be harmful.

A well known disorder is Trisomy 21. People with the condition have a significantly reduced fitness.

EDIT 2: Without examining data he's using, that's a perfectly reasonable argument.

 

 

 

Redundant genes seemes to mutate at the same rate as essential genes. Why is that if there is no selection pressure on the redundant genes?

 

Reptilian Shape-Shifting Aliens.

 

 

Do you think you can handle the truth?

 

What kind of evidence would convince you?

 

Video of me shapeshifting or something like that?

 

Abrupt alterations in genome throughout the history?

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.