you cant even discuss the article that you linked

Draco shut the fuck up honestly

#EvolutionistsGetInHelis

You have a literally contributed nothing to this discussion

discuss the fucking article faggot

can we just be frens

Honestly, does not suit you, liar

you only spam some crap as the response to people calling on you being useless

Well, sorry, I do not lie and do not like liars

prove a single lie of mine

faggot

Generally citing a paper that has an argument is a method of argumentation bit its moreso arguing by being a carrier pigeon. To disprove his statement based on the paper you must then demosntrate that the paper doesnt support his conclusion or that the paper itself is flawed.

Lol. Read the paper, buddy, the link of which I gave, though evolutionists disagreed

i know a lot of back and forth went and have no idea what conclusions were reached in the end

that I linked it

I made just one mistake when comparing the definition of horizontal gene transfer and normal neo-darwinism, where the horizontal gene transfer includes things beside normal reproduction, but the neo-darwinism doesnt seem to be against any other sort of genetic mutations or "transports" such as for example when using alien plasmids in viruses

ffs

can't we just have both lads

(I like to argue in medicine based on papers, such as finding a ton of research demonstrating that excercise can cure for the most part osteoarthrities, however my hypothesis was my own and the papers were rather considered data so its different)

Lol, you literally don't know what Modern Synthesis is.

@Draco People in sub-Saharan Africa were dying as the result of being infected with malaria by mosquitoes carrying the parasite. There was a point mutation that occurred in the genetic code of the sub-Saharan Africans living around great bodies of water. This point mutation, allowed for them to develop sickle cell anemia, which made them unable to be infected with malaria. As a result, that's single point mutation in the genetic code of sub-Saharan Africans, did not result in the death of those sub-Saharan Africans, it actually resulted in millions of sub-Saharan Africans living as a result of that point mutation that resulted in sickle cell anemia. @|4d|61|74|74|

N 1ggrrs in sub-Saharan Africa

I will rather have blacks than baboons, in my country

tbh

n i g g e r

^^^^^^

N i g g e r s

Well, rather be a n****** than a monkey. Even evolution says so

whats the difference

A what now?

Well, one might have morals.

@Draco ??????

Well, nothing. Just preparing helis for Evolutionists

ok now this is epic

@Draco literal idiot needs to kill himself

You would be on crucifix for bearing false witness

So, who cares about your retarded opinions

Wonderful, that Draco guy is clearly an uneducated dumb fucking plebeian, but the article that he linked made a viable point that not every mutation can be called selfish as it is the natural "job" of DNA to express, and it could be difficult to decide in between a mutation being "dominant" or not as some do not even provide reliable phenotypic modifications.

The another argument against normal statement of genes being "dominant" is that some cells and other "objects" are more likely to treat DNA as a "pool of material" rather then being directly influenced only by that code.
That you can modify that code "on the fly" as you were for example writing a program that could modify itself.

The example were for example early-stage human body cells that later develop into very specific distinguish cells

You literally contributed nothing to the argument

Well, I didn't lie at the very least

Anything more as I start up the rotors