Creationists: Demonstrate that wolves and dogs weren't created independently

[pat34lee]

How ironic. You claim something is a belief and then you aver your own belief without any evidence or support to shows that it is anything other than a belief. But no, the limits imagined by Creationists exist on in their imaginations. The fossil and genetic evidence, as my poins 2-7 showed, are that species do change over time and while remaining what their ancestors were (remembers snakes and whales are still terrestrial tetrapods) they can undergo a tremendous amount of change in body plan.


You can only ask that question if you don't know what ERVs are - and I explained them to you.
Junk DNA is a misnomer, created by idiots who needed space for mutations so they wouldn't kill off everything before they could evolve them.
I'm not sure what most of this was supposed to mean, but Junk DNA is very much a thing. A quick check of Google Scholar (rather than just talking through my hat) shows 6,000 hits for "junk dna".

I'm only going to do the first few here again.
My evidence for the first is 3000+ years of agriculture
and animal husbandry. Never has a grain, vegetable,
sheep, cow or pig become something new.

I understand what ERVs are supposed to be. How do
they prove what they are? That they are not original
to our DNA?

I checked Google Scholar for articles on "dark matter"
and got over 3.2 million hits. Care to argue that it is
any more than belief at this point?

 

[Speedwell]

I'm only going to do the first few here again.
My evidence for the first is 3000+ years of agriculture
and animal husbandry. Never has a grain, vegetable,
sheep, cow or pig become something new.

It depends on what you mean by "something new." Certainly new species have been created by breeding, so that must not be "new enough" for you.

 

[USincognito]

I'm only going to do the first few here again.
My evidence for the first is 3000+ years of agriculture and animal husbandry. Never has a grain, vegetable, sheep, cow or pig become something new.

Actually there are a lot of grains, fruits and vegetables that have changed to the point where they no longer resemble the original wild species. Corn and teosinte for example are considered different subspecies. But that's neither here nor there. Most animal breeding is to keep the stock pure. That is the farmer weeds out or artificially selects against novel characteristics stymieing any possible evolution.

Also I know you're a YEC, but 3,000 years is literally nothing in terms of time. Humans have been Homo sapiens for 200,000 years while the genus Homo has been around for 2,100,000 years. I don't know why you would expect a population of Merino sheep for example to "become something new" (whatever you mean by that).

I understand what ERVs are supposed to be. How do they prove what they are? That they are not original to our DNA?

Again, your question suggests you don't understand what they are or how they get into the genome. They are viral DNA, that is DNA from viruses that has been inserted and fixed into our genomes. If you somehow think it's not virus DNA and is somehow actually human DNA instead, then the onus is on you to demonstrate that.

I checked Google Scholar for articles on "dark matter" and got over 3.2 million hits. Care to argue that it is any more than belief at this point?

Let's go ahead and play back the tape:
>> ... Junk DNA is very much a thing. A quick check of Google Scholar (rather than just talking through my hat) shows 6,000 hits for "junk dna". <<
And here's some of the papers (and I forgot to mention I limited it to 2017 and 2018):
Ribosomal RNA genes contribute to the formation of pseudogenes and junk DNA in the human genome
Competing chromosomes explain junk DNA
Junk DNA contribution to evolutionary capacitance can drive species dynamics

Your claim was "there is no junk". These papers demonstrate otherwise.

 

[pat34lee]

It depends on what you mean by "something new." Certainly new species have been created by breeding, so that must not be "new enough" for you.

New species are not new kinds. Show me new features
that could not be formed by adaptation in the old creatures
and substantial changes in the DNA from adding information,
not losing it.

 

[Speedwell]

New species are not new kinds.

I wouldn't know. Lexically, "kinds" is a relative qualifier and I am not aware that it has any meaning as a taxon.

 

[pat34lee]

Actually there are a lot of grains, fruits and vegetables that have changed to the point where they no longer resemble the original wild species. Corn and teosinte for example are considered different subspecies. But that's neither here nor there. Most animal breeding is to keep the stock pure. That is the farmer weeds out or artificially selects against novel characteristics stymieing any possible evolution.

Also I know you're a YEC, but 3,000 years is literally nothing in terms of time. Humans have been Homo sapiens for 200,000 years while the genus Homo has been around for 2,100,000 years. I don't know why you would expect a population of Merino sheep for example to "become something new" (whatever you mean by that).

Again, your question underlies you claim to understand what they are. They viral DNA. That is DNA from viruses that has been inserted and fixed into our genomes. If you somehow think it's not virus DNA and is somehow actually human DNA instead, then the onus is on you to demonstrate that.

Ah, how cute. Let's go ahead and play back the tape:
>> ... Junk DNA is very much a thing. A quick check of Google Scholar (rather than just talking through my hat) shows 6,000 hits for "junk dna". <<
And here's some of the papers (and I forgot to mention I limited it to 2017 and 2018):
Ribosomal RNA genes contribute to the formation of pseudogenes and junk DNA in the human genome
Competing chromosomes explain junk DNA
Junk DNA contribution to evolutionary capacitance can drive species dynamics

Your claim was "there is no junk". These papers say otherwise. Who to trust, who to trust...

Actually, most selective breeding is to strengthen certain preferred
characteristics, such as musculature, fast growth or higher milk
production within a species. Try as they may, there are limits to how
far such traits can be stretched. Past that point, the health degrades.

I am asking how they proved that ERV are viral. How do you know that
it isn't just taken for granted, much as junk DNA has been (which, by the
way, caused DNA science to be stunted for decades.)
https://evolutionnews.org/2014/04/junk_dna_is_a_f/

'Junk DNA' isn't so useless after all - Futurity

Scientists discover a role for 'junk' DNA

https://watermark.silverchair.com/9...RzOS8vXTxA1Ns5pq32RuiIL4MTsilSIcNu-IJEZ6rxNfk

"The March 2018 issue of Chromosome Research is a Special Issue on Transposable Elements and Genome Function. I found it as I was doing my routine search for papers on junk DNA in order to see whether scientists are finally beginning to understand the issue. Peter Larsen (guest editor) wrote the introduction to the special issue. He says ...

"There is no such thing as “junk DNA.” Indeed, a suite of discoveries made over the past few decades have put to rest this misnomer and have identified many important roles that so-called junk DNA provides to both genome structure and function"
Sandwalk: Peter Larsen: "There is no such thing as 'junk DNA'"

 

[pat34lee]

I wouldn't know. Lexically, "kinds" is a relative qualifier and I am not aware that it has any meaning as a taxon.

It has as much meaning as species, which is a relative term.

 

[46AND2]

I am asking how they proved that ERV are viral. How do you know that
it isn't just taken for granted, much as junk DNA has been (which, by the
way, caused DNA science to be built on fantasy for decades.)

Er...cause they can reanimate them, for one.

The Phoenix virus fossil resurrected from human genome

 

[Speedwell]

It has as much meaning as species, which is a relative term.

No, "species" is a defined taxon. "Kind" has no definition as a taxon.

 

[pat34lee]

Ah, how cute. Let's go ahead and play back the tape:
>> ... Junk DNA is very much a thing. A quick check of Google Scholar (rather than just talking through my hat) shows 6,000 hits for "junk dna". <<

Your claim was "there is no junk". These papers say otherwise. Who to trust, who to trust...

And I searched the same Google Scholar and got over 3.2 million hits
for "dark matter". Since you take their word for junk DNA, I thought
you would accept it for dark matter, also. (Something which, by
definition, cannot be seen, measured or otherwise quantified.)

 

[USincognito]

Show me new features that could not be formed by adaptation in the old creatures and substantial changes in the DNA from adding information, not losing it.

First you need to provide us with a quantifiable metric for measuring genetic "information". Without such a metric this demand is nothing but rhetoric.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

@Bugeyedcreepy & @mmksparbud

Your conversation is way off topic and bordering on apologetics. I'd suggest, before someone on mod staff decides to close this thread, bringing the topic back to dogs and wolves or agreeing to disagree.

-_- of course, right as always...

You are right---so I will end it. I got sidelined by the questions. Bye.

I've continued this conversation in another, more appropriate forum.... Here: The value of our epistemological method in coming to a belief...

 

[pat34lee]

First you need to provide us with a quantifiable metric for measuring genetic "information". Without such a metric this demand is nothing but rhetoric.

Loss of genetic information: Happens when a known trait is bred out of
an organism so thoroughly that it cannot be brought back, except by
re-introducing it into the genepool. (And possibly not even then.)

"The real issue

The development of new functions is the only thing important for evolution. We are not talking about small functional changes, but radical ones. Some organism had to learn how to convert sugars to energy. Another had to learn how to take sunlight and turn it into sugars. Another had to learn how to take light and turn it into an interpretable image in the brain. These are not simple things, but amazing processes that involve multiple steps, and functions that involve circular and/or ultra-complex pathways will be selected away before they have a chance to develop into a working system. For example, DNA with no function is ripe for deletion, and making proteins/enzymes that have no use until a complete pathway or nano-machine is available is a waste of precious cellular resources. Chicken-and-egg problems abound. What came first, the molecular machine called ATP synthase or the protein and RNA manufacturing machines that rely on ATP to produce the ATP synthase machine? The most basic processes upon which all life depends cannot be co-opted from pre-existing systems. For evolution to work, they have to come up from scratch, they have to be carefully balanced and regulated with respect to other processes, and they have to work before they will be kept."
mutations-new-information - creation.com

 

[pat34lee]

No, "species" is a defined taxon. "Kind" has no definition as a taxon.

Species is loosely defined. Some separate species can interbreed,
others cannot.

'Kind' was defined well before 1828, at which point, Webster's
dictionary defined it thus:

KIND, noun

1. Race; genus; generic class; as in mankind or humankind. In technical language, kind answers to genus.

2. Sort, in a sense more loose than genus; as, there are several kinds of eloquence and of style, many kinds of music, many kinds of government, various kinds of architecture or of painting, various kinds of soil, etc.

 

[USincognito]

Loss of genetic information: Happens when a known trait is bred out of
an organism so thoroughly that it cannot be brought back, except by
re-introducing it into the genepool. (And possibly not even then.)

"The real issue

The development of new functions is the only thing important for evolution. We are not talking about small functional changes, but radical ones. Some organism had to learn how to convert sugars to energy. Another had to learn how to take sunlight and turn it into sugars. Another had to learn how to take light and turn it into an interpretable image in the brain. These are not simple things, but amazing processes that involve multiple steps, and functions that involve circular and/or ultra-complex pathways will be selected away before they have a chance to develop into a working system. For example, DNA with no function is ripe for deletion, and making proteins/enzymes that have no use until a complete pathway or nano-machine is available is a waste of precious cellular resources. Chicken-and-egg problems abound. What came first, the molecular machine called ATP synthase or the protein and RNA manufacturing machines that rely on ATP to produce the ATP synthase machine? The most basic processes upon which all life depends cannot be co-opted from pre-existing systems. For evolution to work, they have to come up from scratch, they have to be carefully balanced and regulated with respect to other processes, and they have to work before they will be kept."
mutations-new-information - creation.com

That copy pasta doesn't have the quantifiable metric I asked for.

 

[pitabread]

The development of new functions is the only thing important for evolution.

Google "gain-of-function" mutation. There are loads of examples in the scientific literature.

 

[pitabread]

That copy pasta doesn't have the quantifiable metric I asked for.

In my experience, you'll never get one.

 

[pat34lee]

That copy pasta doesn't have the quantifiable metric I asked for.

I gave you that in the first paragraph.

More specifically though:

Genetic information.
The heritable biological information coded in the nucleotide sequences
of dna or rna (certain viruses), such as in the chromosomes or in plasmids.
Oct 3, 2005
Genetic information - Biology-Online Dictionary | Biology-Online Dictionary

 

[pat34lee]

In my experience, you'll never get one.

In my experience, that only happens when this happens.

 

[pat34lee]

Google "gain-of-function" mutation. There are loads of examples in the scientific literature.

"gain-of-function mutation / gain of function mutation
Produces a new trait or causes a trait to appear in inappropriate tissues or at inappropriate times in development."
gain-of-function mutation / gain of function mutation | Learn Science at Scitable

"Despite the deceptive wording found in the gain-of-function definition, there is no increase of information or improvement of biochemical pathways. Without a mechanism for developing such pathways, evolution is nothing more than a myth. Instead, what we observe fits exactly with what we would expect if the Bible is true. Living things are very well designed. Errors introduced by mutations do not build new, well integrated biochemical pathways; instead they often cause disease."
Gain-of-function mutations: at a loss to explain molecules-to-man evolution - creation.com