Joined: Feb. 2008
|Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 08 2010,22:12)|
| Well genetics was not my agenda when I began. I just ran into the claims of genetics to draw relationship between marsupials when in fact they are unrelated to each other save from like influences.|
Dna is in fact just representing a parts department in life. Its only a special case that having such intimate like parts allows me to be connected to my father.
Therefore it must be there is a innate ability of life to react to influences in order to thrive. This atomic code means that when a change has taken place then ones dna will have changed too.
Dna is hand in glove with the living creature. Change the creature change the dna. The dna of coarse must be a part of the change.
Anyways dna is a primitive entry subject.
The relationships between creatures must be and is by anatomical principals.
Your theory (to use the term loosely) of genetics is trivially wrong*. Your posts demonstrate that you are completely ignorant of the subject, and anyone who is not similarly ignorant can plainly see you are just bullshitting.
Some advice from a fellow believer:
|Quote (Thomas Aquinas @ a long smeggin time ago)|
|The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.|
* Here's some hints: ERVs, observed mutation rates, neutral mutations.