1. No, I explained it in my first response and you went "la la la la I can't hear you". Like you always do.
2. You're just being childish,
3. obviously natural selection and mutation go hand in hand. Do I need to explain everything about basic biology in every single comment? Bear in mind you also criticized me for failure to explain that my views are my views. This is the hyper-critical nonsense people focus on when they have no argument.
4. No, his laws do not state that as they were published many years before the discovery of DNA, long before "DNA" was even coined as a term, and over a century before the sequencing of the first genome.
5. First of all, no you haven't. Second of all I posted a brief video in one of my responses to you that deals specifically with with the fusion and separation of human chromosomes which you refused to watch.
6. The beginnings and ends of chromosomes changing due to mutation and having a chromosome be copied twice are two different things,
7. as the video you demanded I post
8. and then refused to watch
9. explains chromosomes are just chunks of DNA separated during mitosis.
10. Duplication mutations are common and cause harmful effects depending entirely on the placement of the DNA duplicated and the content of the DNA duplicated.
11. Many duplications are completely neutral
12. and to give an example of this there are organisms that contain multiple entire copies of their genome - wheat has I think six copies of it's entire genome and some microbes have genomes over 100 times the size of the human genome due to duplication mutations.
13. The video I posted at your request
14. which you refuse to watch gives specific examples of duplicated DNA in our genome.
See no evidence, hear no evidence, speak no evidence.
1. Sigh... Actling like a child really doesn't do any good on a public forum... I already rebutted your point, the only reply I could find was that you believe that evolution is the "unifying theory in Biology" (but doesn't tackle abiogenesis though... right hypocritical )... This doesn't DEMONSTRATE HOW a doctor who believes we "evolved" from a bacteria is better than one who doesn't believe this.
Therefore your reply here is either, you don't understand what demonstrate means, or you are yet again avoiding to answer.
Like I always do? Please quote where I have went "la la la la la not listening" (since you put quotation marks I assume you are claiming I actually said this)
2. How is pointing out your fault being childish? Or was this a jab?
3. Just like yourself who didn't even bring an argument, rather you waxed philisophical on semantics. Considering that your high priest Mr Dawkins cannot answer this, I understand why you'd prefer to debate semantics rather than the actual question... Evidence below
4. Care to try again? The age of his law is irrelevant unless you want to use the argument from age, which is a logical fallacy....
Law of Segregation (The "First Law")
The Law of Segregation states that every individual possesses a pair of alleles (assuming diploidy) for any particular trait and that each parent passes a randomly selected copy (allele) of only one of these to its offspring. The offspring then receives its own pair of alleles for that trait. Whichever of the two alleles in the offspring is dominant determines how the offspring expresses that trait (e.g. the color and height of a plant, or the color of an animal's fur).
5. Firstly you have no idea if I watched the video or not hence your claim here is baseless slander, (which I ask you to retract), additionally you should have posted the video here. Perhaps state a few of the major points since a forum is sharing ideas not videos.
6. Care to give evidence of this? Or do you think that a just-so-story is scientific evidence?
7. I made no demand of a video, I asked you to share evidence.. I was hoping you'd post it yourself since it means you cannot back away from it when it gets debunked.
8. Again, baseless slander, I ask you to retract this.
9. I know how mitosis works, that isn't evidence of what you are claiming.
10. duplications are almost always harmful since they result in a frameshift meaning the entire chromosome is "out of whack" for example
separated into codons, when I add a G at the start
GAT, TAT, CGC, T
Totally different chromosome across the rest of the length of the chromosome.
11. No they are not, as I have shown.... Go study Genetics.
12. I already addressed plants, I don't care about plants I care about animals, this was one of my stipulations prior to your reply.
13. I never requested you do anything, all I have asked is for evidence, the medium you choose to give it is entirely up to you.
14. Again more slander, I ask you to retract this unfounded statement.