[Flipper]

Originally Posted by Stripe

They probably aren't.

And you forgot to provide the answers to the important questions for these genes:
How is the base nucleotide sequence determined? Is it the sequence from an individual or is it a composite sequence? How is that composite composed? Are all the organisms sequenced in the same fashion?

How about you try doing own legwork for once?

I know that for you it will involve the exhausting process of reading for comprehension and sounding out all the difficult big words and all the other unpleasantly brain-exerting intellectual exercises that you consistently shirk away from like a vampire at a garlic festival, but it's time to man up for once.

See if you can find some evidence, and then present it in the form of a counter argument. If you do a good job, I might even accept it as positive proof on the thread about your generally abject failure to be able to provide evidence in support of your assertions.

[Stripe]

Originally Posted by Flipper

How about you try doing own legwork for once?

How about you quit whining like a child for once?

Honestly - I have six-year-olds that go on less than you do.

[Flipper]

Originally Posted by Stripe

How about you quit whining like a child for once?

Honestly - I have six-year-olds that go on less than you do.

Have they been writing your posts for you? It would explain a lot.

[The Barbarian]

(Flipper suggests that Stipe do his own research)

Stipe responds with his usual level of maturity:

How about you quit whining like a child for once?

He's asking you to man up and do your own research. And all you can do is throw a tantrum because he won't do it for you. You're perfect, Stipe.

[Alate_One]

Originally Posted by Yorzhik

Really? Is there a description of what method was used to compare these entire genomes?

BTW, the sizes of the genomes would matter a great deal in a "whole" genome comparison. But I'm sure that has to be mitigated in some way because functionality is what really matters. Do you know how they mitigated this problem in the study you cite?

There really isn't that much variation in mammalian genome size, especially compared to other organisms.

Very interesting talk on genomics and evolution is here:

Genome size

It could be. Are there others available that were left out on purpose?

Not that I'm aware of. There aren't that many mammalian genomes yet.

Maybe when they find a new plausible main driver to evolution they'll admit to a stepping stone problem. And I'll have to reassess my view of creation.

Mutation and natural selection are only SOME of the drivers of evolution.

That simply isn't true. I used to be a theistic evolutionist until I looked at the evidence. There was no pressure or reason to change except that evolution gets less and less viable the more we learn.

We find exactly the opposite actually. You should take a look at the talk I linked above. It shows patterns in genome size that make no sense from a creationist perspective but make a lot of sense from an evolutionary one.

For example, organisms that undergo complete metamophosis, typical frogs and salamanders have SMALLER genomes than those that stay in the larval state. Vertebrates that are stronger fliers have smaller genomes than those that are weaker fliers or flightless.

[Yorzhik]

Originally Posted by Alate_One

There really isn't that much variation in mammalian genome size, especially compared to other organisms.

Very interesting talk on genomics and evolution is here:

But that doesn't address the question. The variation is great enough that it would need to be dealt with in any comparison.

Still, not ignoring any data from mammals, the question remains: Is there a description of what method was used to compare these entire genomes?

Not that I'm aware of. There aren't that many mammalian genomes yet.

OK. It's a good study path to go down.

Mutation and natural selection are only SOME of the drivers of evolution.

Yeah, I know. The video you just posted said so. And the *main* driver is? Barbarian has said it is mutation + NS. What do you say it is?

We find exactly the opposite actually. You should take a look at the talk I linked above. It shows patterns in genome size that make no sense from a creationist perspective but make a lot of sense from an evolutionary one.

Your talk included not only that junk DNA is a problem for evolution, but that mutation + NS may not be the main driver of evolution. This is at odds with the current form of evolution, which most theistic evolutionists don't look into. When they do, they find large enough holes in the theory to reasonably conclude that evolution is wrong.

For example, organisms that undergo complete metamophosis, typical frogs and salamanders have SMALLER genomes than those that stay in the larval state. Vertebrates that are stronger fliers have smaller genomes than those that are weaker fliers or flightless.

Telling God how to design something will be valid when you can understand the design in the first place. Although this is a point for evolution, it is such a weak point as to be embarrassing.