Top 10 Myths About Evolution

[doubtingmerle]

I doubt it.

Give yourself credit. You could understand this stuff if you took the time.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That literally describes every living organism on this planet, as well as DNA viruses.

Because it was all created from the same "dust".

Nah, you clearly made some assumptions about my reasoning at the start that weren't true. I am 100% certain you did not expect me to agree with your first two sentences. Similarity that indicates shared ancestry is different from random chance similarity.

What similarity? You mean the point shared that happens to coincide with ERV's?

Yes, they do target specific genes, and they do so with the intent of instigating a specific type of genetic change. All possible genetic changes are not equally probable or even necessarily possible for that type of process, and the same goes for the people that were breeding barley. They wanted specific types of changes, and made efforts to get them and avoid others. Their study never was intended to see how many different traits they could get, and even if it was, I explained to you that mutagenic substances do not instigate all sorts of mutations with equal probability, making attempting to determine some limit of variation via inducing mutation that way inherently flawed.

So what method of inducing mutations would you prefer?

So any similarities at ERV sites can be attributed to viruses, since they would target similar cells.

Only in the sense that, since we can't perform genetic tests, it is impossible to tell if a fossil belongs to a species that was the last common ancestor between two modern or extinct groups. It is a consequence of the fact DNA doesn't last very long, no more and no less. It is entirely possible that we have found many such species in the fossil record and simply don't recognize them as such.

As its also probable they miscalssified many subspecies as separate species based upon differences, say like the difference betwen dogs?

or the differences between Ceratopsia?

I am assuming you are referring to Ragnar Granit from the original paper you posted, because otherwise, said last name is too common for me to figure out what specific paper you could be referencing. The man died in 1991, long before the human genome was sequenced. His citation is a book not published by a scientific journal in which he explores his personal views on the origin of the universe and his theology. He's not even well known for that book, and the bulk of his scientific work revolves around the function of the human eye in terms of physiology and chemistry. He has nothing to do with genetics or plant/animal breeding, so I don't view his citation as particularly relevant.

After all our discussions about finches and the Grants?????

The fact that you seem to have thought that the citation was a paper, not a book, says a lot about how much reading you have been doing.

That you mistook the Grants for someone else after our discussion about finches, says maybe you havent done enough.

If you are referring to Peter R. Grant, which I hope for your sake is not the case, you've never read any of his work directly, I can tell you that much. He's the evolutionary biologist that demonstrated that natural selection can be observed to make significant changes to populations within a human lifetime. He works with birds, not plants, and is not cited by the original paper you presented. He also has 0 papers supporting the "law of recurrent variation" and as far as I can tell doesn't even have papers that use that phrase. Most of the relevant work of his is also extremely outdated, with most of it being from the late 1980s and the early 1990s.

Ive read every single one of their papers. And thats why most avoid them because they dont like hearing they pointed out that breeding was two to three times greater at producing new additive genetic variation than mutation.

PHENOTYPIC AND GENETIC EFFECTS OF HYBRIDIZATION IN DARWIN'S FINCHES. - PubMed - NCBI

"Hybridization increased additive genetic and environmental variances, increased heritabilities to a moderate extent, and generally strengthened phenotypic and genetic correlations. New additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization is estimated to be two to three orders of magnitude greater than that introduced by mutation."

Which is why i suggested you read up on it, as you seem to want to imply I need mutations to explain variance, when mutation cant even beat normal breeding in creating new genetic variance..... In fact the mutation simply creates the same thing, over and over and over.....

-_- they literally were directing the mutations to force specific traits to appear, exactly why should I view such an experiment as giving any insight as to the amount of mutations these plants could potentially experience?

Please explain to us all how you direct a mutation?

Even if you showed how many different ways a single mutation could change a specific gene, it wouldn't give you any insight as to how further mutations would impact physiology. And that ancient study didn't even accomplish that. As far as 40 years goes, even if any of those individual experiments lasted that long (they didn't) and they didn't use mutagenic substances which inevitably result in specific types of mutations appearing more frequently, that wouldn't be a sufficient amount of time to determine how many possible ways a genome can mutate. I'd even go as far as to say that unless the genome of the organism in question is very short, it'd be impossible to witness all single base pair mutations even with endless clones of animals to inbreed and centuries to observe it in.

Wait, you just complained awhile ago there wasnt enough references in his paper, and now suddenly you know all about it?

I mean, consider this sequence of just 5 different bases:
AATCG
How many ways do you think I can change that sequence when the only difference amounts to just 1 base pair, either being swapped, added, or deleted? Well, there should be 3 different ones for each base being swapped for another, such as ATTCG, so 15 of those. With additions, for each single base addition of a particular base there are 6 different places they can go, such as AAATCG, so 24 of those. There are 5 different ways single base deletions could go, such as ATCG.

That means a sequence of just 5 bases can change in 44 different ways with just a single base mutation. I can't even fathom the number of ways an organism with 1 million base pairs, which is significantly shorter than any known eukaryotic genome, could change with just 1 base pair.

And that's not even accounting for the larger mutations.

Except changing more than one not only affects that base pair, but damages the rest of the genome. That's why the genome has a repair mechanism. There isnt 44 different ways, because after just a few that base pair becomes unrecognizable to the rest of the genome and it no longer functions properly.

Just why do you think they have all but abandoned mutation research in plant and animal husbandry????????????

Because almost all imparted some weakness to the organism, or other undesirable affect.

-_- why would disproving a theory, even one as big as evolution, require a person to quit their biology career? It's not like disproving the theory of evolution is the same thing as disproving all of biology.

After that, they wouldnt have a career....

Ask the first guy who found soft tissue in a triceratops horn..... but unlike M.S. didnt try the evolutionary PR speil....

Why would a person that legitimately disproved a theory that big lose the respect of their peers? It would be a necessary, revolutionary development for the field of biology, just like Miasma theory of disease being replaced with Germ theory of disease was. I think you significantly overestimate the negative impacts of disproving theories.

Ask the first guy that discovered soft tissue......

It's not 40 years of mutation experiment to determine how much one can change cattle or plants. For example, the barley experiments lasted about 5 years, and again, they were trying to influence the sorts of mutations they got. A lot of the cultivars they developed this way were useful, and many persist to this day, so that experiment wasn't even a failure like the paper you linked stated it was.

oh no, dont even try that. Almost every usefull strain we have was developed through genetic splicing, not mutation....

1. That is an incorrect assessment of dog evolution. Dogs are derived from at least two different populations of the same wolf species, one which lived in the East and one which lived in the West.

Small dogs and big dogs. But where did the west and east wolves come from, wolves?

2. I am not ignoring them, but you like to ignore my statement that I contend that all modern dogs are not the same species. Demonstrate to me a cross between a female chihuahua and a male Great Dane. Do it. Prove me wrong when I say that a female chihuahua can't take the puppies to term if the father is a Great Dane.

Is that like donkey and horses supposedly being separate species but can produce offspring? Being able to take a litter to term because of size has nothing to do with whether they are separate species or not. So what about finches they call separate species but regularly interbreed? I guess well just have no usable definition of species, but whatever we all want it to be at any given time????

3. Need I post the pictures of the first generation of my Triops versus the latest generation of my Triops? I got tails longer than any possible F1 generation relative these Triops had. In a species that is entirely asexual and thus cannot be crossed with any other breeds or species. Consider your continuous assertion that new traits only arise with hybridization refuted by me personally.

If you say so.

Triops - Wikipedia

"Most species reproduce sexually, but some populations are dominated by hermaphrodites which produce internally fertilised eggs."

Internal fertilization - Wikipedia

"Internal fertilization is the union of an egg cell with a sperm during sexual reproduction inside the body of a parent."

Hermaphrodite - Wikipedia

"In these groups, hermaphroditism is a normal condition, enabling a form of sexual reproduction in which either partner can act as the "female" or "male".

Perhaps you dont understand Triops as much as you like to think you do..... or perhaps you were hoping i didnt understand them.... Ill give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were just repeating what someone told you.....

 

[PsychoSarah]

Because it was all created from the same "dust".

I guess that you consider the Genesis 2 creation to be the valid one and not the Genesis 1 creation. Seriously, read Genesis 1, the word "dust" isn't even in it.

What similarity? You mean the point shared that happens to coincide with ERV's?

-_- no, I mean in general. For example, our genomes are about a 50% match for the genome of bananas. All eukaryotes are significantly more genetically similar to each other than the 25% maximum that could be explained by chance. ERVs are but a small part of that, and the significance of them is in the fact that they are viral remnants with no reason to be present in the genomes of different species in analogous locations. You and other creationists cannot even argue that they have a need to be in those locations because as a general rule, organisms have sequences that keep the ones that aren't completely broken from activating.

So what method of inducing mutations would you prefer?

You don't. You don't induce them, because inducing them at all is a deviation from what occurs in nature. Of course, if you want to know what a specific mutation will do, feel free to induce it, but don't think that any experiment that forces mutations to occur is a representation of what mutations are possible.

So any similarities at ERV sites can be attributed to viruses, since they would target similar cells.

-_- ERVs are attributed to viruses, do you even know what they are? They are viral remnants. However, viruses don't insert themselves and leave behind their genetic material frequently and consistently enough in gametes for shared ERVs to be simply the result of separate cases of viral infection. Especially considering the fact that these ERVs are also subject to mutation, and the mutations also match up.

As its also probable they miscalssified many subspecies as separate species based upon differences, say like the difference betwen dogs?
View attachment 232001
or the differences between Ceratopsia?
View attachment 232002

The only reason that dogs can have so much physiological variety and yet mostly consist of just one species (until you demonstrate that a male Great Dane and a female Chihuahua can reproduce successfully, I retain my position that they are separate species) is due to the fact that they are a product of artificial selection by us. Name 1 living species that isn't domesticated with even close to as much physiological variety.

Plus, yes, when you just look at the artist renditions of what the heads of these animals looked like, they do all look very similar, but try looking at the entire body of some of them.

Oldest member of Ceratopsia, dating to around 161 million years old

Most recent member to have gone extinct:

In case you didn't notice, that first one is bipedal. So go ahead, try to justify all Ceratopsians being the same species. From this point forward, I will consider it to be deceptive to post artistic recreations of these dinosaurs that don't show the entire body and are not representative of the range of characteristics these creatures had.

After all our discussions about finches and the Grants?????


That you mistook the Grants for someone else after our discussion about finches, says maybe you havent done enough.

Dude, I have conversations with many people on this site and I am terrible with names, how the heck am I supposed to memorize it all?

Ive read every single one of their papers. And thats why most avoid them because they dont like hearing they pointed out that breeding was two to three times greater at producing new additive genetic variation than mutation.

PHENOTYPIC AND GENETIC EFFECTS OF HYBRIDIZATION IN DARWIN'S FINCHES. - PubMed - NCBI

Breeding doesn't produce new genetic variation. I don't understand why you don't get that. Crossing two organisms of different species or subspecies doesn't suddenly result in many new alleles arising. It just results in individuals with an unusual combination of alleles. While this may grant those first generation hybrids a rather unique look, it's not consistent. You can't cross a Pug/Poodle mix with another Pug/Poodle mix and get puppies that consistently look like the parents.

That is, hybridization can contribute a little bit to genetic drift, but absolutely, 100%, unless chromosome number is changed, it will not result in anything new genetically speaking. Heck, unless the genes experience codominance or incomplete dominance, the features wouldn't even give the illusion of a new trait in the phenotype.

"Hybridization increased additive genetic and environmental variances, increased heritabilities to a moderate extent, and generally strengthened phenotypic and genetic correlations. New additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization is estimated to be two to three orders of magnitude greater than that introduced by mutation."

Which could be the case for the particular population of birds they were observing. However, note that they NEVER stated mutation does nothing. You are in the camp that claims new traits DON'T arise via mutation at all (new beneficial traits, that is). The genetic variance is new to that population in that before hybridizing, said population didn't have some of the genes exclusive to the other species. The genes themselves, however, are not new in the context of the species that originally had them. By the way, I hate people using orders of magnitude, why not just say 1000X greater?

Clearly, this would not be the case for modern humans, because there hasn't been another member of the genus Homo for us to crossbreed with for thousands of years. Yet, certain traits you try to claim could not have been the result of mutation are far too recent to be the result of cross breeding with Neanderthals, etc.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Sorry, had to be two posts on account of a word limit I was not aware this site had.

Which is why i suggested you read up on it, as you seem to want to imply I need mutations to explain variance, when mutation cant even beat normal breeding in creating new genetic variance..... In fact the mutation simply creates the same thing, over and over and over.....

-_- you have completely failed to demonstrate that mutations only create the same traits repeatedly or that there is any limit on what mutations can do.

Please explain to us all how you direct a mutation?

How I would or how the people in the 1950s were trying to? Because I'd utilize modified viruses to insert the desired new gene/mutation. I said they were trying to direct the mutation, I didn't say that their method of doing it was very good. I am pretty sure that they just threw away anything that had traits they didn't want. Which is pretty much what people that just regularly breed plants do.


Wait, you just complained awhile ago there wasnt enough references in his paper, and now suddenly you know all about it?[/QUOTE]
I never complained that there weren't enough references, I complained that his citations were done improperly, making some of the papers he was referencing practically impossible to find. I also commented that the excess of self-citations with encyclopedias was extremely peculiar and not professional. All of the material I went over pertains to two references. All of the barley stuff is attached to just one of them.

Regardless, tell me, were they ever trying to get barley to become "not barley"? Were they ever trying to get cattle to be anything but cattle? This is the problem with the selective breeding examples he chooses; they all just wanted a specific range of traits. No one is going to breed for a cow with toxic blood, even though in the wild that would definitely be beneficial for survival. We breed them to produce milk and be tasty when they die.

Except changing more than one not only affects that base pair, but damages the rest of the genome. That's why the genome has a repair mechanism. There isnt 44 different ways, because after just a few that base pair becomes unrecognizable to the rest of the genome and it no longer functions properly.

Actually, most mutations are neutral, and unless the stop codon or the start codon for a gene is affected, there is absolutely NOTHING preventing that gene from becoming active. Heck, unless an active site of a protein is affected, the mutation won't even necessarily result in a protein with a different function whatsoever.

Also, the rest of the genome is not damaged, it is all "read" in the context of the start codon. That starts the 3 codon pattern. If this wasn't the case, insertions and deletions would practically always result in death. Heck, even mutations that affect the reading frame of a gene don't just end up indefinitely transcribing; it's gonna hit another stop sequence eventually.

Just why do you think they have all but abandoned mutation research in plant and animal husbandry????????????

-_- who is this "they"? Surely you aren't referring to the people referenced that actually performed the breeding studies, because I'd be shocked if they aren't all dead by now.

I can think of many reasons to stop. For example, the experiments simply concluded, they got the results they needed, why go on indefinitely?

As for why we wouldn't bother to perform these processes in modern day to get the traits we want, we can just design genes now and insert those. No reason to have any amount of randomness whatsoever. We can do better than natural processes.

Because almost all imparted some weakness to the organism, or other undesirable affect.

A side effect of the mutagenic substances. These organisms were not experiencing just 1 additional mutation compared to what they would have naturally ended up with. When one drastically increases the number of mutations an organism has, this will inevitably result in more frequent detrimental mutations, just like increasing the probability of getting a mutation that is neutral or benign. You cannot claim that these organisms suffered as a result of just one mutation causing both the positive and the negative effects, because their genomes weren't even sequenced at the time of those breeding projects and the methods utilized wouldn't have been that precise.

The only reason we aren't all dead because of mutations is because many of the detrimental mutations are recessive and we have two of each chromosome.

After that, they wouldnt have a career....

The funny thing is that you follow this up with two examples of people that still have decent careers, with the latter definitely still being well respected.

Ask the first guy who found soft tissue in a triceratops horn..... but unlike M.S. didnt try the evolutionary PR speil....

Dude won his court case and gained work elsewhere. Plus, the whole issue with that was the fact that he was talking about how he viewed his discovery as being evidence for YECism WITH STUDENTS outside of work hours. Not with colleagues, not in a published paper, but with students. And we both know how the laws are in the United States when it comes to teaching YECism as a fact, so the University response isn't all that shocking. But, technically, he didn't break the law because he talked about it with students in his of time and didn't require them to talk about it with him.

He's now working with the Creation Research Society, and a few others of variable scientific merit. His career isn't over "because he found evidence against evolution". These tissues found in dinosaurs aren't considered to be evidence against evolution, and the process by which they are preserved is now decently understood.

Ask the first guy that discovered soft tissue......

She's still a working paleontologist and even earned an award in April of this year. Of course she had critics at the time of her discovery; something that is in no way unexpected. However, by late 2010, the extraction of proteins, preserved tissue, and cell parts from dinosaur bones is considered to be confirmed.

So, tell me, how has the biggest discovery in this woman's life ruined her career?

oh no, dont even try that. Almost every usefull strain we have was developed through genetic splicing, not mutation....

-_- the first recorded instance of gene splicing of anything was in 1975. Are you seriously going to claim that prior to 1975, humans failed to produce useful strains of various plants? Also, how do you get red Venus flytraps when all wild ones are mostly green? How about yellow ones, and ones with weird looking traps? I swear a new cultivar comes out every year, and yet it is a monotypic genus, you can't cross them with anything other than other Venus flytraps. What about variegation, a trait that is relatively uncommon in the wild yet there are tons of plant cultivars with it?

Keep in mind that the barley experiment referenced in the original paper you posted took place over a decade before 1975. Funny that you asked me earlier in this thread why people stopped trying to produce useful strains of barley via exposure to mutagenic substances and yet later on bring up the process that would have made such a method entirely obsolete.

Small dogs and big dogs. But where did the west and east wolves come from, wolves?

-_- they originated as one population, and then later separated into two with one portion heading West and the other heading East. They stayed apart long enough for there to be a notable number of genes exclusive to each population, hence why we can tell that dogs are derived from two different populations, not one. Yes, it matters, it made a difference in genetic distribution among dogs.

Is that like donkey and horses supposedly being separate species but can produce offspring?

-_- only 1/100 female mules are fertile, and no male mules are. One of the qualifications of belonging to the same species, as far as animals go, is the capacity to reproduce and have FERTILE offspring. 1/100 and only females of that is not sufficient. Horses and donkeys don't even have the same chromosome numbers, why try to argue that they are the same species?

But hey, where is my Great Dane and Chihuahua mix, Justa? Either state that you aren't willing to try to defend the idea that dogs are all the same species and never bring up dogs again, or actually try to breed the two.

Being able to take a litter to term because of size has nothing to do with whether they are separate species or not.

If the two can't reproduce and produce fertile offspring, then they aren't the same species. There is no getting around that. Heck, name a single animal species in which not every member belonging to the same species is physically able to breed (obviously, not counting specifically infertile individuals that can't breed with anything).

So what about finches they call separate species but regularly interbreed? I guess well just have no usable definition of species, but whatever we all want it to be at any given time????

They don't interbreed as regularly as a certain person has claimed, and with birds, it is the species A, B, and C issue. By definition, ALL members of a species of animal MUST be able to breed and produce fertile offspring. So when species A and species B can breed, species B and species C can breed, but species A and species C cannot breed, they can't all be lumped together as the same species. Thus, the compromise is to name them all as 3 individual species.

-_- the imperfections of taxonomy and the fact that nature doesn't fit into the little boxes we make for it isn't an argument against evolution.

If you say so.

Triops - Wikipedia

"Most species reproduce sexually, but some populations are dominated by hermaphrodites which produce internally fertilised eggs."

"Triops longicaudatus displays several reproductive strategies. Individuals may reproduce sexually, but this is rare, as most populations are highly male- or female-biased. Parthenogenesis (development from unfertilized eggs) is the most common reproductive strategy."

This is the species I am using. You could have looked it up specifically if you had actually read my Triops experiment thread and saved yourself some embarrassment. But no, you had to assume that because MOST Triops species reproduce sexually that I had to be wrong about the population I was working with.

Internal fertilization - Wikipedia

"Internal fertilization is the union of an egg cell with a sperm during sexual reproduction inside the body of a parent."

Hermaphrodite - Wikipedia

"In these groups, hermaphroditism is a normal condition, enabling a form of sexual reproduction in which either partner can act as the "female" or "male".

Perhaps you dont understand Triops as much as you think you do.....

Not my fault you didn't look stuff up by species. Although, you are right, Parthenogenesis and internally fertilizing their own eggs are different things, my bad. I tried 3 different species when starting off the experiment, and if either of the first two had worked, they would have been crossing with each other. Unfortunately, the first I tried refused to hatch and the second was so cannibalistic that they ate all of the females.

So yes, my original claim that my Triops cannot breed with each other is still a factual statement. So how did I end up with different traits in later generations than in previous ones, hmm?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The only reason that dogs can have so much physiological variety and yet mostly consist of just one species (until you demonstrate that a male Great Dane and a female Chihuahua can reproduce successfully, I retain my position that they are separate species) is due to the fact that they are a product of artificial selection by us. Name 1 living species that isn't domesticated with even close to as much physiological variety.

Plus, yes, when you just look at the artist renditions of what the heads of these animals looked like, they do all look very similar, but try looking at the entire body of some of them.

Oldest member of Ceratopsia, dating to around 161 million years old

Most recent member to have gone extinct:

In case you didn't notice, that first one is bipedal. So go ahead, try to justify all Ceratopsians being the same species. From this point forward, I will consider it to be deceptive to post artistic recreations of these dinosaurs that don't show the entire body and are not representative of the range of characteristics these creatures had.

We are going to get this issue out of the way, then we will get back to the rest when I have time.

Dogs. There is more variety than in nature because man brings together what would if left to occur naturally would take hundreds of thousands of years. There isnt as much variety in any other species, because most dont selectively breed with other subspecies, unless their ranges are forced to overlap because of famine, geological changes, etc. What you see in dogs is just what you think is evolution accept on an accelerated scale. If left alone their would only be a few breeds of dogs, matching what we see in nature. But the point is that they are all still dogs, still the same species.

Yes Great Danes and Chihuahua's too.

Next you'll be claiming Mules are separate species from horses. Wait, they already do and yet....

Mule’s foal fools genetics with “impossible” birth – The Denver Post

Again, they have simply incorrectly labeled them as separate species.

As for ceratopsia:

Depends on the artist for its stance and even how it looks.

Oh wait, look, it goes on all fours.

Let's understand it's all artist rendition, this is what has been discovered.

"The holotype consists of an almost complete skull. As paratype specimen IVPP V12633 has been referred, the skull of a juvenile. In 2007 another skull, CAGS-IG-VD-002, of an even younger individual was referred. This lacked the skull roof, which has been explained as the result of a predator opening the braincase to eat the contents."

Two almost complete Liaoceratops skulls have been found.

So from a skull, they are going to tell me if its bipedal or not. I mean PLEEEEEAAAASE. That's just like evolutionists, thinking they can deduce an entire creature from a skull.

This from people that couldnt even tell babies and adults belonged to the same species.

And as stated, both are juvenile, and like birds, dinosuars retained their juvenile characteristics well towards adulthood.

I expect PR from evolutionists, but to find two partial skulls, then portray them as bipedal and then try to use that as support in an argument......

 

[Justatruthseeker]

"Triops longicaudatus displays several reproductive strategies. Individuals may reproduce sexually, but this is rare, as most populations are highly male- or female-biased. Parthenogenesis (development from unfertilized eggs) is the most common reproductive strategy."

This is the species I am using. You could have looked it up specifically if you had actually read my Triops experiment thread and saved yourself some embarrassment. But no, you had to assume that because MOST Triops species reproduce sexually that I had to be wrong about the population I was working with.

Not my fault you didn't look stuff up by species. Although, you are right, Parthenogenesis and internally fertilizing their own eggs are different things, my bad. I tried 3 different species when starting off the experiment, and if either of the first two had worked, they would have been crossing with each other. Unfortunately, the first I tried refused to hatch and the second was so cannibalistic that they ate all of the females.

So yes, my original claim that my Triops cannot breed with each other is still a factual statement. So how did I end up with different traits in later generations than in previous ones, hmm?

Now we'll get to this, you left this important part out.

Triops longicaudatus - Wikipedia

"Apart from Triops cancriformis, it is the only tadpole shrimp species whose individuals display as many as three reproductive strategies: bisexual, unisexual (parthenogenetic), and hermaphroditic;"

You have offered no proof that none of them are hemaphorditic or bisexual. SO odds are there are a few of those types mixed in, which is why only those have longer tails. Have you personally checked each one to assure that none are hermaphroditic or bisexual??????

I'll answer that for you, no, so don't bother trying to double-talk. So don't try telling me they only reproduce asexually.

 

[PsychoSarah]

We are going to get this issue out of the way, then we will get back to the rest when I have time.

Dogs. There is more variety than in nature because man brings together what would if left to occur naturally would take hundreds of thousands of years. There isnt as much variety in any other species, because most dont selectively breed with other subspecies, unless their ranges are forced to overlap because of famine, geological changes, etc. What you see in dogs is just what you think is evolution accept on an accelerated scale. If left alone their would only be a few breeds of dogs, matching what we see in nature. But the point is that they are all still dogs, still the same species.

Yes Great Danes and Chihuahua's too.

Next you'll be claiming Mules are separate species from horses. Wait, they already do and yet....

Mule’s foal fools genetics with “impossible” birth – The Denver Post

Again, they have simply incorrectly labeled them as separate species.

As for ceratopsia:

Depends on the artist for its stance and even how it looks.

Oh wait, look, it goes on all fours.

Let's understand it's all artist rendition, this is what has been discovered.

"The holotype consists of an almost complete skull. As paratype specimen IVPP V12633 has been referred, the skull of a juvenile. In 2007 another skull, CAGS-IG-VD-002, of an even younger individual was referred. This lacked the skull roof, which has been explained as the result of a predator opening the braincase to eat the contents."

Two almost complete Liaoceratops skulls have been found.

So from a skull, they are going to tell me if its bipedal or not. I mean PLEEEEEAAAASE. That's just like evolutionists, thinking they can deduce an entire creature from a skull.

This from people that couldnt even tell babies and adults belonged to the same species.

And as stated, both are juvenile, and like birds, dinosuars retained their juvenile characteristics well towards adulthood.

I expect PR from evolutionists, but to find two partial skulls, then portray them as bipedal and then try to use that as support in an argument......

1. Wrong species of dinosaur, I was referring to Yinlong downsi, which is stated to be the oldest member of Ceratopsia in the wiki for the latter term. We definitely have enough bones to tell that this one is bipedal. Sorry for the confusion.

"The known fossil material of Yinlong consists of many skeletons and skulls.[2] The first specimen discovered was a single exceptionally well-preserved skeleton, complete with skull, of a nearly adult animal, found in 2004 in the Middle-Late Jurassic strata of the Shishugou Formation located in Xinjiang Province, China. Yinlong was discovered in an upper section of this formation which dates to the Oxfordian stage of the Late Jurassic, or 161.2 to 155.7 million years ago.[1][2] All other described ceratopsians are known from the later Cretaceous Period."


2. Dog variation is not explainable via crossbreeding alone, because what the heck do you think they were crossed with? Other canines? We'd be able to see that in the genome. Not only that, but you are denying the genetic changes that have occurred within purebred dogs.

Are you seriously going to claim that the reason modern pugs don't look as they did in the late 1800s is because professional breeders didn't keep track and let hybrids into the gene pool? Pugs are inbred as all heck and have horrific health issues because people only bred pugs with other pugs. People are crazy about keeping documents and breeding records to demonstrate how inbre-purebred their dogs are.

Where did the flatter face, shorter legs, and curlier tail come from, Justa?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Now we'll get to this, you left this important part out.

Triops longicaudatus - Wikipedia

"Apart from Triops cancriformis, it is the only tadpole shrimp species whose individuals display as many as three reproductive strategies: bisexual, unisexual (parthenogenetic), and hermaphroditic;"

You have offered no proof that none of them are hemaphorditic or bisexual. SO odds are there are a few of those types mixed in, which is why only those have longer tails. Have you personally checked each one to assure that none are hermaphroditic or bisexual??????

I'll answer that for you, no, so don't bother trying to double-talk. So don't try telling me they only reproduce asexually.

I like how this has come to the point where you can only attempt to argue that I couldn't get long tails from a population that started out without that trait whatsoever without cross breeding, despite the fact that all the eggs were "brothers and sisters".

Also, you are funny if you think that individuals have all 3 of those at once. Bisexual and hermaphroditic are a tad contradictory for one animal to have, don't you think? Hermaphroditic refers to self fertilizing hermaphrodites, fyi, and I have never witnessed a single individual without egg sacks among my Triops. Not one. No males. They don't mate, dude, get over it.

So they either fertilize their eggs with their own sperm before laying them, or just lay unfertilized eggs.

Reproductive isolation and genetic differentiation in North American species of Triops (Crustacea: Branchiopoda: Notostraca)

I know that the reproductive strategies are restricted by specific populations because I heavily researched Triops before beginning my experiment.

-_- also, for the love of everything, I knew what I was getting because the Triops longicaudatus that have interbreeding individuals cost more and are labeled gonochoric.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

1. Wrong species of dinosaur, I was referring to Yinlong downsi, which is stated to be the oldest member of Ceratopsia in the wiki for the latter term. We definitely have enough bones to tell that this one is bipedal. Sorry for the confusion.

"The known fossil material of Yinlong consists of many skeletons and skulls.[2] The first specimen discovered was a single exceptionally well-preserved skeleton, complete with skull, of a nearly adult animal, found in 2004 in the Middle-Late Jurassic strata of the Shishugou Formation located in Xinjiang Province, China. Yinlong was discovered in an upper section of this formation which dates to the Oxfordian stage of the Late Jurassic, or 161.2 to 155.7 million years ago.[1][2] All other described ceratopsians are known from the later Cretaceous Period."


2. Dog variation is not explainable via crossbreeding alone, because what the heck do you think they were crossed with? Other canines? We'd be able to see that in the genome. Not only that, but you are denying the genetic changes that have occurred within purebred dogs.

Are you seriously going to claim that the reason modern pugs don't look as they did in the late 1800s is because professional breeders didn't keep track and let hybrids into the gene pool? Pugs are inbred as all heck and have horrific health issues because people only bred pugs with other pugs. People are crazy about keeping documents and breeding records to demonstrate how inbre-purebred their dogs are.

Where did the flatter face, shorter legs, and curlier tail come from, Justa?

You answered your own question.

Pugs look different than they did BECAUSE they are inbred. Not because of mutation, but because they kept breeding the same strain back with the same strain.

And just how do you think they traced the genetics of 100’s of different dogs back to wolves? Because they could see it in the genome...

Come on Sara, your excuses are becoming nonsense.

Oh my, notice how they can trace the different breeds interbreeding back to wolves.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I like how this has come to the point where you can only attempt to argue that I couldn't get long tails from a population that started out without that trait whatsoever without cross breeding, despite the fact that all the eggs were "brothers and sisters".

Also, you are funny if you think that individuals have all 3 of those at once. Bisexual and hermaphroditic are a tad contradictory for one animal to have, don't you think? Hermaphroditic refers to self fertilizing hermaphrodites, fyi, and I have never witnessed a single individual without egg sacks among my Triops. Not one. No males. They don't mate, dude, get over it.

So they either fertilize their eggs with their own sperm before laying them, or just lay unfertilized eggs.

Reproductive isolation and genetic differentiation in North American species of Triops (Crustacea: Branchiopoda: Notostraca)

I know that the reproductive strategies are restricted by specific populations because I heavily researched Triops before beginning my experiment.

-_- also, for the love of everything, I knew what I was getting because the Triops longicaudatus that have interbreeding individuals cost more and are labeled gonochoric.

Are you telling me there are no bisexual or hermaphrodite Tripp’s in that population.

Your attempt at double-talk, as if I said individuals were both is astounding.

I said can you assure me it doesn’t contain bisexual or hermaphrodite individuals and you try to avoid it by claiming I said individuals were both.

Man, you’ll say anything to avoid the truth, won’t you.

Can you positively guarantee that there are no bisexual OR hermaphrodite individuals, or that no sexual mating is occurring between those “brothers and sisters” as you put it? And right there you showed they consist of both male and female Tripp’s.

Your fooling no one but yourself.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Are you telling me there are no bisexual or hermaphrodite Tripp’s in that population.

Can't be any bisexual ones, as there are no males, and hermaphrodites are self-fertilizing. They do not mate.

Your attempt at double-talk, as if I said individuals were both is astounding.

I said can you assure me it doesn’t contain bisexual or hermaphrodite individuals and you try to avoid it by claiming I said individuals were both.

No, it sounded like you were assuming that I could have individuals that both are asexually and sexually reproducing. Triops longicaudatus hermaphrodites do not mate with each other, the difference between that method of reproduction and parthenogenesis is that in the former, the eggs are fertilized by their own sperm, and in the latter, they are not.

Man, you’ll say anything to avoid the truth, won’t you.

Can you positively guarantee that there are no bisexual OR hermaphrodite individuals, or that no sexual mating is occurring between those “brothers and sisters” as you put it?

100% my Triops do not mate with each other. I can guarantee that. You seem to want to assume I can't, but that sounds like a personal problem.

And right there you showed they consist of both male and female Tripp’s.

-_- the "brothers and sisters" are in quotes because that isn't an accurate representation of their biological genders, only their degree of relatedness. Males don't have egg sacks, like I said before. There has never been a male in my Triops population. Not one.

Your fooling no one but yourself.

It sounds like you legitimately don't have an argument if my Triops don't mate with each other, and given the fact that I even started out with an extremely genetically restricted population, I don't think you'd even have an argument if they did mate with each other.

-_- I mean, come on, you constantly argue that crossing between different breeds/species is required for new traits, but I only started out with less than 20 individuals all of the same species and even same egg laying event. You are done. Your entire contention is based upon me doing something incorrectly, but you lack the capacity to demonstrate that. Do you want me to send you some of my eggs just so you can observe that they don't mate with each other? Because based on accounts from people that raise different species, Triops look like they are attacking each other when they mate, and I haven't witnessed such behavior from them despite staring at the things for hours at a time, watching them eat, lay eggs, and swim around.

Plus, the non-bisexual ones in captivity are the ones that perform parthenogenesis, and like I said before, no males in my population, therefore, it isn't bisexual.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You answered your own question.

Pugs look different than they did BECAUSE they are inbred. Not because of mutation, but because they kept breeding the same strain back with the same strain.

Explain how being inbred would result in differences in physiology without any mutations whatsoever, including in the traits that were already recessive such as the less curly tail of 1880.

And just how do you think they traced the genetics of 100’s of different dogs back to wolves? Because they could see it in the genome...

Come on Sara, your excuses are becoming nonsense.
View attachment 232063

Oh my, notice how they can trace the different breeds interbreeding back to wolves.....

-_- which is why I specifically gave a timeline of 100 years, not thousands of years. People being crazy about purebred dogs is relatively recent. So unless you are going to argue that the pug lineage has been crossed with something else since then, your argument is moot, because where are the new traits going to come from? Flat faces are not recessive, Justa, it can't hide out as a recessive trait. Curly tails are not recessive, Justa, it can't hide out as a recessive trait.

How can you argue inbreeding could cause different traits when you have consistently claimed that only by crossing animals with different breeds/species can yield different traits?

Also, I like how you entirely ignored the demonstrably bipedal dinosaur and chose not to address that whatsoever. Are you going to argue that it is the same species as all those other ones or not?

 

[AirPo]

How about we answer the question?
It's that thing with the mark on the end.

Granted, the myth embedded in the question is not apparent. The myth is that since humans are considered apes, all other apes should be on the same evolutionary path. That's not true. Humans evolved human traits because they fit the environment human evolved in. Chimps evolved chimp traits etc ...

 

[doubtingmerle]

Even the Grants had to admit that in their studies where they found breeding was two to three orders of magnitude greater at producing genetic variation than mutation.

well Yes, they were studying finches that bred with a different species. And yes, the resulting change can then be huge.

Again your problem is, when eohippus lived, there was nothing close to a horse or zebra to breed with to produce zebras. So how did eohippus lead to zebras by breeding?

 

[SkyWriting]

Granted, the myth embedded in the question is not apparent. The myth is that since humans are considered apes, all other apes should be on the same evolutionary path. That's not true. Humans evolved human traits because they fit the environment human evolved in. Chimps evolved chimp traits etc ...

What path do we imagine they are not on?

 

[Speedwell]

What path do we imagine they are not on?

Our path. Even if Planet of the Apes came true, they would still not be homo sapiens.

 

[AirPo]

What path do we imagine they are not on?

Ours

 

[SkyWriting]

Ours

And where are we headed that you claim we are not?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And where are we headed that you claim we are not?

We don't know. We just know that other apes aren't on the same path as us.

 

[AV1611VET]

Granted, the myth embedded in the question is not apparent. The myth is that since humans are considered apes, all other apes should be on the same evolutionary path. That's not true. Humans evolved human traits because they fit the environment human evolved in. Chimps evolved chimp traits etc ...

As long as we're apes, that's all that matters, isn't it?

That, of course, ensures Jesus was an ape.

And not just any old ordinary ape, but an ape from one of those "ignorant, bronze age, desert dwelling, goat herding tribes" that today is the source of many international problems due to daring to claim land that doesn't belong exclusively to them because it was promised to them from some Heinz 57 made-up deity ... right?