Some things I just don't think most of you understand...

[DogmaHunter]

Speed isn't the only consideration. Sometimes horses are bred for endurance. Depends on the type of race they will run.

Right. Because genetics. It's funny how this completely contradicts the point you try to make.

The kind of selective breeding described in the article would never take place in nature.

Exactly, because in natural selection, the selection pressure is on survival and successfull reproduction...
While in artificial selection, other parameters are important. Like for speed races, they'll be selected on speed. Derp.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This should be all I need to say about all of your incorrect beliefs about HGT only applies to simple organisms. They are doing it all the time in the lab with:

Primates

Mammals

Reptiles

Birds

Fish

and on and on and on......

 

[The Cadet]

This should be all I need to say about all of your incorrect beliefs about HGT only applies to simple organisms. They are doing it all the time in the lab with:

Primates

Justa, nobody believes that HGT only applies to prokaryotes. In fact, a recent paper found a huge number of genes that transferred to humans horizontally! Maybe even enough to differentiate us from chi-

...Sorry, can't finish that sentence with a straight face. They found 145.

http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2015/03/humans-may-harbor-more-100-genes-other-organisms

Nobody is discounting HGT. What we're doing is looking at it and noticing that it's not going to account for the mutations we see.

 

[Pink Spider]

____________________________________
____________________________________

MOD HAT ON

Please keep it civil guys and 'chill'...

Please remember:​

Flaming and Goading


● Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue.
● Do not attack another member's character or actions in any way, address only the content of their post and not the member personally.
● NO Goading. This includes images, cartoons, or smileys clearly meant to goad.
● Stating or implying that another Christian member, or group of members, are not Christian is not allowed.
● Only the person to whom the post is addressed may report the other. Anyone may report generalized flames or goads which are addressed to a group of members.
● Moderators have the right to report egregious violations of flaming or goading.
● Clear violations of the flaming rule will result in bans.

and

Vulgarity and Profanity


Please do not post violent, disturbing, graphic, or sexually explicit images or text. Profanity or foul language is not allowed. This includes using punctuations or acronyms to bypass the profanity filter and a few non-censored words found here

MOD HAT OFF​

​

____________________________________
____________________________________​

 

[Loudmouth]

He's just agreeing with the science, unlike you - since you all claim the only place that DNA isn't junk is in the DNA coding for proteins.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation
"One study on genetic variations between different species of Drosophila suggests that, if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, the result is likely to be harmful, . . .

What percentage of mutations occur in genes? Genes only make up 2-3% of the genome. This means that 97% of mutations don't occur in genes. Want to try that again?

 

[Loudmouth]

We performed a classic MA experiment in which frequent sampling of MA lines was combined with whole genome resequencing to develop a high-resolution picture of the effect of spontaneous mutations in a hypermutator (ΔmutS) strain of the bacterium Pseudomonas aeruginosa. After ∼644 generations of mutation accumulation, MA lines had accumulated an average of 118 mutations, and we found that average fitness across all lines decayed linearly over time.

What about the strains with normal amounts of mutation?

Detailed analyses of the dynamics of fitness change in individual lines revealed that a large fraction of the total decay in fitness (42.3%) was attributable to the fixation of rare, highly deleterious mutations (comprising only 0.5% of fixed mutations). Furthermore, we found that at least 0.64% of mutations were beneficial and probably fixed due to positive selection. The majority of mutations that fixed (82.4%) were base substitutions and we failed to find any signatures of selection on nonsynonymous or intergenic mutations.
-fitness is strongly influenced by rare mutations of large effect in MA experiment.
Genetics. 2014 Jul; 197(3): 981–990.
doi: 10.1534/genetics.114.163147

83% of mutations were neutral. This contradicts what people are trying to claim, that the majority of mutations are harmful.

 

[Loudmouth]

Justa, nobody believes that HGT only applies to prokaryotes. In fact, a recent paper found a huge number of genes that transferred to humans horizontally! Maybe even enough to differentiate us from chi-

...Sorry, can't finish that sentence with a straight face. They found 145.

http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2015/03/humans-may-harbor-more-100-genes-other-organisms

Of those 145 found across all primates, only 1 is human specific, and only 2 are specific to apes. The vast majority were already present in the primate common ancestor meaning that they occurred well before primates came about. I think it is a bit confusing to call them 145 human genes since the vast majority have orthologs in all primates.

 

[Loudmouth]

You can start with Darwin's Finches and show how they became separate species since they have been interbreeding since they first arrived on the islands? I've asked you repeatedly to defend this claim and you have run from it every time.

Why is reversal of incipient speciation such a problem for the theory of evolution? No one expects speciation to be a quantum event where two populations are forever separate in the span of a single generation.

 

[Loudmouth]

We agree - if you keep blinding yourself to the fact they have incorrectly classified 90% of the fossil record as separate species, it won't matter how much science is presented to you.

Notice that there are no species names in this figure.

They are transitional fossils because they have a mixture of features between two taxa, humans and chimps. It is their morphology that makes them transitional, not the name we give them or the groups we lump or split. Whether we call them H. habilis and H. erectus or all H. erectus, they are still transitional because of their physical features.

Because they keep using false evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man

"The fossil was introduced as evidence by Clarence Darrow in defense of John Scopes during the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial. Darrow died in 1938, fifteen years before Piltdown Man was exposed as a fraud."

Which of those fossils in the image above is Piltdown Man?

Again you are ignoring the science by the people that have actually studied it.

Lateral Gene Transfer.

"But all agree that the exchange of genetic information across species lines — which is how we will define LGT in this primer — is far more pervasive and more radical in its consequences than we could have guessed just a decade ago."

But you are still living in the past.

0.01% to 0.1% is a ten fold increase. It is still a small number. You need to show what "more pervasive" actually looks like in a quantitative sense, not just a qualitative sense. As shown above, one study found just 3 HGT events in the human lineage going back to the primate common ancestor.

Here are some other quotes for you:

"Although HGT should now be recognized as an important force in the evolution of many groups of eukaryotes and their genes, including some genes previously thought to be 'immune' to HGT83, 87, there is no reason to think that it is so prevalent as to undermine efforts to reconstruct a dichotomously branching tree of eukaryotic phylogeny, much less call for the replacement of the tree metaphor with a 'web of life' metaphor, as some have controversially suggested for prokaryotes1."

And . . .

". . . in a few cases at least, HGT can be viewed as a positive for reconstructing eukaryotic phylogeny, because in principle each transfer has the potential to serve as a valuable phylogenetic marker98. In these cases, a transferred gene is found in many or all members of several diverse lineages, supporting their common ancestry."

http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v9/n8/full/nrg2386.html

 

[Loudmouth]

The best horse breeders in the world agree with me.....that it's still a crapshoot.

The next time you hear of someone crossing a thoroughbred with a Clydesdale in hopes of producing a Kentucky Derby winner, let me know. Until then, you don't know of what you speak.

The crapshoot occurs during meiosis when multiple traits are shuffled and divided between gametes. The chances of getting all the traits you want and none of the traits you don't want is the crapshoot. However, you still stack the deck by having breeding stock with the traits you want.

 

[Loudmouth]

Speed isn't the only consideration. Sometimes horses are bred for endurance. Depends on the type of race they will run.

The kind of selective breeding described in the article would never take place in nature.

Until modern genetics came along, it was no different than what happened in nature. It's not as if humans use a different set of physics than the rest of the universe. Breeders have traditionally chosen breeding pairs by phenotype, the same way that nature does it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What percentage of mutations occur in genes? Genes only make up 2-3% of the genome. This means that 97% of mutations don't occur in genes. Want to try that again?

Except you require those mutations to occur in the very protein encoding genomes which make up the 2% of the whole and in which you were informed: "if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, the result is likely to be harmful, with an estimated 70 percent of amino acid polymorphisms that have damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial."

Now all of a sudden you want to try to run from your claims, when you find suddenly it is almost invariably damaging to the host. Your arguments dance all over the place because you don't even know what you believe - and don't even have a consistent argument from one post to the next.

 

[Loudmouth]

Except you require those mutations to occur in the very protein encoding genomes which make up the 2% of the whole and in which you were informed:

No, I don't. The vast majority of mutations are neutral because they happen in parts of the human genome that have no selectable function. That's what the evidence supports.

Now all of a sudden you want to try to run from your claims,

My claims? Perhaps you can quote me and give the post number?

Besides, I fully agree with the quote. The small percentage of mutations that do occur in protein coding regions will more likely be harmful than beneficial. That's why we see signals of negative selection in these regions due to evolution.

when you find suddenly it is almost invariably damaging to the host. Your arguments dance all over the place because you don't even know what you believe - and don't even have a consistent argument from one post to the next.

Almost invariably? Of the mutations that separate chimps and humans, how many of those 40 million mutations do you think are harmful?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I suggest you go to a race horse breeder and repeat that....

There's a reason why they don't breed horses with random other horses.
There's a reason why people fork over truckloads of money to acquire sperm samples from specific race horses.

It's not because they "hope" it will yield result.
It's because they know it will yield result.

Because none of it occurs by random mutation, which is why they have a chance of predicting a successful pairing... And they don't know anything - they hope the offspring will inherit good traits from both mother and father, but this is not always the case. And in the end we are discussing "breeds" of horses within the same species - you know- what all of you avoid like the plague.

 

[Loudmouth]

Because none of it occurs by random mutation,

Evidence?

Do you have the genome sequencing to back it up?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, I don't. The vast majority of mutations are neutral because they happen in parts of the human genome that have no selectable function. That's what the evidence supports.

That's a straight out lie and you know it. 98% of the genomes have unknown functions - and are not coding genes - by your own claims. They are talking about mutations that occur in the coding genes. You can try to double-talk yourself around it and convince yourself of a lie if you want. Just don't expect the rest of us to accept those lies.


If misstating the truth is where you are led to because you can't admit the truth to yourself - we are through. It's one thing to be mistaken - and another to tell deliberate falsehoods to cover your deficiencies.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Evidence?

Do you have the genome sequencing to back it up?

Don't need it, you produce it showing mutation occurred if you think you can back up that claim.

I know exactly how it occurs - they mate one horse with another horse and recombination of genes and new dominant and recessive traits appear - without any mutation involved. But you go right on believing that every time they mate horses, mutations magically happen that are always beneficial. Pure bunk on your part - not even really worth considering.

At least do some actual research before you start making ridiculous claims.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...und-horse-breeders-start-to-look-to-genetics/

 

[DogmaHunter]

Don't need it, you produce it showing mutation occurred if you think you can back up that claim.

I know exactly how it occurs - they mate one horse with another horse and recombination of genes and new dominant and recessive traits appear - without any mutation involved. But you go right on believing that every time they mate horses, mutations magically happen that are always beneficial. Pure bunk on your part - not even really worth considering.

If this were true, then you should be able to start with a pack of wolves and recreate a chiwawa.

Good luck with that...

 

[Loudmouth]

Don't need it,

Yes, you do. You claimed that no improvement in any horse was ever produced by a mutation. Your claim, your job to produce the evidence.

I know exactly how it occurs - they mate one horse with another horse and recombination of genes and new dominant and recessive traits appear - without any mutation involved.

And there is the claim once again. Where is the evidence backing this? Every human that we have looked at is born with 35 to 50 mutations.

"Here we present, to our knowledge, the first direct comparative analysis of male and female germline mutation rates from the complete genome sequences of two parent-offspring trios. Through extensive validation, we identified 49 and 35 germline de novo mutations (DNMs) in two trio offspring, as well as 1,586 non-germline DNMs arising either somatically or in the cell lines from which the DNA was derived."
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v43/n7/full/ng.862.html

Why wouldn't horses also have mutations?

 

[Loudmouth]

That's a straight out lie and you know it. 98% of the genomes have unknown functions - and are not coding genes - by your own claims.

90% of the genome is accumulating mutations at a rate consistent with neutral drift which falsifies your claim that a majority of mutations are harmful.

They are talking about mutations that occur in the coding genes.

Those mutations only make up 2% of all mutations. You are ignoring the other 98%.