"Hemi", again...

Hemi at NAIG is afraid to comment here for some reason and has produced another silly post at NAIG. It is not worthy of any well thought-out reply, but I will address his silliest complaint. He also seems to think that I removed my other articles, apparently not realizing that by clicking on the blog title, you can get to the main page. Hemi's rant in blue.

So now you're saying that a list of observed altered traits
has nothing to do with phenotype or a list of mutations you can see in a species
is not part of it's phenotype?

Um, no, the phenotype IS the observed traits (more or less). Mutations do not always alter phenotype. In fact, most do not.

The last I heard any observable expression or manifestation
of any physical part of any life form was it's phenotype.

That is true. I wonder what the last you heard about "mutations" was? If you heard that all mutations alter phenotype, then you are just a typically disinformed creationist.

You claim "we can see these mutations", then you say you
can't see them.

As usual, the creationist distorts and misrepresents. You CAN 'see' the mutations - by comparing DNA sequence data. Pretty simple, really. But, as I have explained, not all mutations alter phenotype, you do not always (and usually do not) "see" the physical manifestation of them. I should have thought that someone suich as Hemi who has been involved in these 'debates' for at least several years might have picked up on at least the basics.

Pogge calcualted there would be about 20,000 mutations in
the last 4,000 years and you claimed that was a strawman, but you see the
mutations anyway, but it's the number that is a strawman

.

Yes, and I explained why. Perhaps the explanation was too 'technical'? Here, again - Pogge declared that this sentence:

"In some behavioral and cognitive traits, humans have changeddramatically since their evolutionary divergence from a common ancestor shared with chimpanzees. "

indicated to him (and only to him) that there was an "uneven split" in the distribution of mutations. It was this silly "interpretation" that lead to his concocted number. The number is, indeed, a strawman (or something very much like it). And yes, you can 'see' the mutations.

So I asked you for the ones you DO see, that was a strawman
too. Then you claim the mutations you see is not part of the phenotype. Unless
someone changed the definition of phenotype while I was working or something
they Are part of the phenotype if you can see them.

AGAIN, as I wrote, you can "SEE" the mutations. But a mutation does not mean an altered phenotype.

BTW, why did you take down Pogge's post and replace it with
the response I have on here? I don't wish to be on your goofy board.

I did not take down the article on Pogge's disinformation. You simply have not yet figured out how to click links, I guess. If you do not wish to be on my 'board', then perhaps you should not have chosen to comment on an article that I have on it.