Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The goal is to exclude supernatural influence and find natural reasons for everything
No.....that's the plain stated goal of science, to find the cause for any effect
Even better - learn some embryology and you wouldn't need to tinker like an 'engineer' and make silly guesses by making analogies to electronics and the like.
The RLN takes the path it does because of a conserved developmental process, seen in all vertebrates.
During the early stages of development, when the nervous system, digestive system, face/head, and circulatory system are just starting out, ALL vertebrates lay down virtually identical primordia - at this stage of development, they are all literally right next to each other - heart and primordial circulatory system, brain/brainstem/cranial spinal cord, digestive/respiratory system (pharynx) - all jam packed right next to each other.
Bear with me - this is a bit later in development that what I was referring to, but the basic proximity of structures is still pretty clear:
The area around that red splotch in the middle is the developing heart. That ball-shaped thing above that is the developing mandible. To the left of the red splotch/developing heart is the last remaining parts of the pharyngeal apparatus ('gill slits'), to the left of that, the circular thing is the developing external ear. The 'clear' region on the left, extending up into the head, is the spinal cord/brain. You can see little tendrils emanating from the area of the brainstem traveling 'through' the pharyngeal apparatus region (actually, around the pharynx - that clearish region) , heading toward the heart. In the adult, these tendrils (nerves associated with the pharyngeal arches) will extend down through the neck area. The larynx is developing somewhere just under the mandible in this picture. What you cannot see in these pics are the blood vessels emanating and traveling back to the heart, but they are there, and those 'tendrils' (nerves) pass between some of these aortic arches.
See? All right next to each other.
In the human, the larynx 'migrates' lower into the neck. The nerves that supply it are 'dragged' along with the migrating larynx, but since they passed between aortic arches (most of which are now regressing, being co-opted to form adult vessels, etc.) , the nerves are 'pulled' way down into the mediastinum, even as they are connected to the larynx, which stays in the neck.
No need to posit silly electrician-type trial and error tests. Just a little relevant knowledge. But to use a 'design' analogy - it is like doing all the wiring for a car before the frame is built, and then having to route the wiring for, say, the starter around the rear seats and then back into the engine. An act that would get a human designer at the very least laughed at, I should think.
And thats the point - there is no design, just left over developmental processes that 'worked'.
Amazing how that works, isn't it?
Now where was I...
OK - done.
The Case for Junk DNA
PLoS Genet. 2014 May; 10(5): e1004351.
Published online 2014 May 8. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1004351
The Case for Junk DNA
"...there is an unfortunate tendency for researchers and science writers to proclaim the demise of junk DNA on a regular basis without properly addressing some of the fundamental issues that first led to the rise of the concept."
"By far the dominant type of nongenic DNA are transposable elements (TEs), including various well-described retroelements such as Short and Long Interspersed Nuclear Elements (SINEs and LINEs), endogenous retroviruses, and cut-and-paste DNA transposons. Because of their capacity to increase in copy number, transposable elements have long been described as “parasitic” or “selfish” [22], [23]. However, the vast majority of these elements are inactive in humans, due to a very large fraction being highly degraded by mutation. Due to this degeneracy, estimates of the proportion of the human genome occupied by TEs has varied widely, between one-half and two-thirds."
"Another large fraction of the genome consists of highly repetitive DNA. These regions are extremely variable even amongst individuals of the same population (hence their use as “DNA fingerprints”) and can expand or contract through processes such as unequal crossing over or replication slippage. Many repeats are thought to be derived from truncated TEs, but others consist of tandem arrays of di- and trinucleotides [30]. As with TEs, some highly repetitive sequences play a role in gene regulation (for example, [31]). Others, such as telomeric- and centromeric-associated repeats [32], [33], play critical roles in chromosomal maintenance. Despite this, there is currently no evidence that the majority of highly repetitive elements are functional."
And so on.
We can identify pseudogenes and mutated TEs because enough of their sequence remains intact to see sequence identity with more intact versions.
Thus, it should be a piece of cake for you to find many examples of original Wolf-kind alleles that have been degraded via mutation (which you claim does not exist... or something) in dog genomes.
Can't wait!
Maybe you can ask Jeff Tomkins to look into it - maybe he can take a break from nitpicking real science (and getting exposed as being deceptive) and actually try to find support for YECism.
See above.
Waiting for your supporting evidence that counters what we know.
I am aware that this is what ancient superstitious numerologists wrote, yes.
How do we "understand" that given what the bible actually says?
I already debunked this ignorance - more than once - but I thought I would pull up some refutations from the previous times he's made these silly claims - I should also point out that others have also explained his errors to him.
Please understand that the above quote is what justa interprets to mean that the Grants declared that hybridization CREATES new alleles, as opposed to what anyone that understands basic genetics will see - that hybridization merely INTRODUCES new alleles into a different population. Hybridization does NOT 'create' new alleles. Why creationists cannot understand this is a most interesting phenomenon.
I should also point out that when I had debunked this claim before, I also pointed out that the paper he chose to cite to prop up his unfounded claims also contained a devastating rebuke for his claim that all extant diversity arises from hybriodization:
" Despite the low production of hybrids, by 2007, over 30% of the population of G. scandens possessed alleles whose origin could be traced back to G. fortis. The two populations had become more similar to each other morphologically and genetically..."
Sort of blows the whole Asians arose via hybridization (between which populations? He never says) thing out of the water - hybridization, according to justa's own citation, DECREASES variation, it does not create it.
Love that unwitting projection.
Hilarious, for many reasons.
Thank you so much for the lesson in genetics! But, please tell me what does "DIVERGED" mean in your quote?
Are you claiming that DIVERGENCE is produced by hybridization?
If so, who hybridized with who to get the 'modern gray wolf' FROM the extinct european wolf?
You don't understand the material well enough to see how you keep contradicting yourself, that is true.
The mixing of alleles sure is important - but you continue to simply ignore a simple fact - those alleles don't just pop out of nowhere, and they are NOT produced via hybridization (though I do detect the groundwork for a "I knew it all along" escape/defense at some point - pity that your old posts will be there to embarrass you for some time).
Wow... OK...
Interbreeding gave us Asians and Africans.
But in the post I am responding to (and all of your previous posts on this subject), all you can seem to 'document' is a homogenization of forms via hybridization (from the Grant paper). Your ignorance of genetics and populations and such informed you that because they found hybridization was more important locally in the short term that new alleles produced via mutation were, that ALL variation must be produced that way - but once you got your money quote, you stopped reading (or couldn't understand any other parts), like where they explained that the hybrids exhibited LESS diversity.
So, in the Grant paper, what you fail to grasp, is that the individual species that interbred had to come from somewhere - they came from a long-term acquisition of NEW alleles, and the more recent rounds of hybridization were due to rapid changes in habitat.
Another quote from the paper that I pointed out to you before that fell on deaf ears:
“Introgressive hybridization is effective in increasing genetic variation because it simultaneously affects numerous genetic loci. The total effect on continuously varying traits can be up to two or three orders of magnitude greater than mutation (Grant & Grant 1994).”
Do you know what a continuous trait is?
A continuous trait is one that exists along a continuum - like height. They do not create 'new' traits.
Enough of the Grant misinterpretations - this page from another thread:
Asking for interpretations of this cladogram
contains some of my previous rebuttals to justa's silly misinterpretations and such, no need to reinvent the wheel.
Ok, wow... UM...
A phylogenetic analysis does NOT seek to find the mutated alleles of the original kind...
My gosh...
I mean, did you even look at the picture on that webpage? No wolves were even in the analysis!
Did you bother to click the link to see the actual scientific paper? Of course not! More in a moment...
LOL!!
Um.. No - 1. that cladogram only referred to modern domestic dog breeds, not ALL canids.
2. The root of the tree is unlabeled, so you cannot even claim that it 'goes back to 2'.
Also - I do enjoy demonstrating that you do not even read, much less understand, the things you reference.
If you had actually read the paper, you would have seen:
"Our analyses were designed to detect recent admixture; therefore, we were able to identify hybridization events that are described in written breed histories and stud-book records. Using the most reliably dated crosses that produced modern breeds, we established a linear relationship between the total length of haplotype sharing and the age of an admixture event, occurring between 35 and 160 years before present (ybp) "
So unless you think all dogs 'hybridized' away from a single species (impossible!) of wolf in 160 years... Well, never mind. Suffice it to say this is a huge fail on your part.
But I digress.
Ok - I need to copy paste this line from justa here again:
"By golly, look how they all lead backwards to just two.................... Oh my, imagine that, but you shouldn't have to imagine, you were already told that."
Keep that in mind for a second - he says it traces back to just 2 -
So is it "just two" or "a group"?
And 40,000 years ago? Oh, right - this is where you accept the part that you misinterpret to support your claim but reject the parts that don't.
Great.
And?
From the actual research paper that press release was based on:
"By calibrating the mutation rate using our oldest dog, we narrow the timing of dog domestication to 20,000–40,000 years ago. "
Mutation rate? What?
UH-OH:
"Furthermore, we detect an additional ancestry component in the End Neolithic sample, consistent with admixture from a population of dogs located further east that may have migrated concomitant with steppe people associated with Late Neolithic and Early Bronze age cultures, such as the Yamnaya and Corded Ware culture."
So much for that "single wolf kind" magically diversifying via hybridization with... itself.. to magically create diversity by somehow mixing up its already present alleles...
Unless you want to posit at least 2 creation events of the original dog-kind?
And it gets worse for you, pally:
"Our results are consistent with continuity of a European-like genetic ancestry from modern dogs through the entire Neolithic period. However, the slightly displaced position of the ancient samples from the European cluster in the PCAs (particularly for CTC) suggests a complex history. We therefore performed unsupervised clustering analyses with ADMIXTURE (SNP array data; Supplementary Fig. 15) and NGSadmix (whole-genome data; Fig. 4 and Supplementary Fig. 16) (Supplementary Note 9) and found that, unlike contemporary European village dogs, all three ancient genomes possess a significant ancestry component that is present in modern Southeast Asian dogs. This component appears only at very low levels in a minority of modern European village dogs. Furthermore, CTC harbours an additional component that is found predominantly in modern Indian village as well as in Central Asian (Afghan, Mongolian and Nepalese), and Middle Eastern (Saudi Arabian and Qatari) dogs (concordant with its position in the PCA), as well as some wolf admixture."
So, sure, MODERN European dog breeds can be traced back to a GROUP of dogs, but ALL MODERN dogs show a MIXTURE of genetic inputs from multiple earlier dog populations.
Looks like it is back to the drawing board for your "hybridization all the way down" farce.
I also suggest you stop relying on press releases, and even more strongly suggest you stop pretending to make scientific arguments until after you take a few years-worth of college classes on the relevant science.
MASSIVE FAIL.
Pity that your 'references' completely contradict your layman's conclusion.
The saddest part is that the Dunning-Kruger effect is so powerful in you that you will actually think you somehow proved your point and DIDN'T, yet again, make a fool of yourself.
No difference at all - you simply do not understand any of this and cannot face that simple fact due to your egotism.
" If the larynx needs a signal from the aortic arch that loop is a great way to facilitate the 'my heart was in my throat' response."
Please provide evidence that "the aortic arch" sends motor input to the larynx. Via the RLN.
Oh - you forgot to admit that your links totally did not help your cause at all! Trying to bury that now? Too bad - I will keep reminding everyone.
Even better - learn some embryology and you wouldn't need to tinker like an 'engineer' and make silly guesses by making analogies to electronics and the like.
The RLN takes the path it does because of a conserved developmental process, seen in all vertebrates.
During the early stages of development, when the nervous system, digestive system, face/head, and circulatory system are just starting out, ALL vertebrates lay down virtually identical primordia - at this stage of development, they are all literally right next to each other - heart and primordial circulatory system, brain/brainstem/cranial spinal cord, digestive/respiratory system (pharynx) - all jam packed right next to each other.
Bear with me - this is a bit later in development that what I was referring to, but the basic proximity of structures is still pretty clear:
The area around that red splotch in the middle is the developing heart. That ball-shaped thing above that is the developing mandible. To the left of the red splotch/developing heart is the last remaining parts of the pharyngeal apparatus ('gill slits'), to the left of that, the circular thing is the developing external ear. The 'clear' region on the left, extending up into the head, is the spinal cord/brain. You can see little tendrils emanating from the area of the brainstem traveling 'through' the pharyngeal apparatus region (actually, around the pharynx - that clearish region) , heading toward the heart. In the adult, these tendrils (nerves associated with the pharyngeal arches) will extend down through the neck area. The larynx is developing somewhere just under the mandible in this picture. What you cannot see in these pics are the blood vessels emanating and traveling back to the heart, but they are there, and those 'tendrils' (nerves) pass between some of these aortic arches.
See? All right next to each other.
In the human, the larynx 'migrates' lower into the neck. The nerves that supply it are 'dragged' along with the migrating larynx, but since they passed between aortic arches (most of which are now regressing, being co-opted to form adult vessels, etc.) , the nerves are 'pulled' way down into the mediastinum, even as they are connected to the larynx, which stays in the neck.
No need to posit silly electrician-type trial and error tests. Just a little relevant knowledge. But to use a 'design' analogy - it is like doing all the wiring for a car before the frame is built, and then having to route the wiring for, say, the starter around the rear seats and then back into the engine. An act that would get a human designer at the very least laughed at, I should think.
And thats the point - there is no design, just left over developmental processes that 'worked'.
Amazing how that works, isn't it?
How about you show us your work on the "utter improbability of evolution"?
And then tell us all about " the 100 percent certainty of purposeful design"? I shouldn't have to, but I must make clear - Intelligent Design IN NATURE. Because you see, I have been bitten in the past asking for evidence of Intelligent Design and being told about computers and the like, which is sad and dishonest given the context of the discussions...
And when I write "show us" and "tell us about", I definitely do NOT mean 'why don't you re-state your 100% unsupported question begging assertions with more of the same?, as you've done here.
I mean, demonstrate that evolution is "utterly improbable" - complete with definitions of your variables, how you determined the values of your variables, why you chose those variables, etc.
I mean show us some verifiable evidence that "purposeful design IN NATURE" is true - retreating to bible verses will not cut it; mere assertions will be considered concessions.
Additionally, if you choose to present the claims of other creationists/IDCs, please explain how it is that their claims have merit, and how YOU know this.
Now where was I...
OK - done.
The Case for Junk DNA
PLoS Genet. 2014 May; 10(5): e1004351.
Published online 2014 May 8. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1004351
The Case for Junk DNA
"...there is an unfortunate tendency for researchers and science writers to proclaim the demise of junk DNA on a regular basis without properly addressing some of the fundamental issues that first led to the rise of the concept."
"By far the dominant type of nongenic DNA are transposable elements (TEs), including various well-described retroelements such as Short and Long Interspersed Nuclear Elements (SINEs and LINEs), endogenous retroviruses, and cut-and-paste DNA transposons. Because of their capacity to increase in copy number, transposable elements have long been described as “parasitic” or “selfish” [22], [23]. However, the vast majority of these elements are inactive in humans, due to a very large fraction being highly degraded by mutation. Due to this degeneracy, estimates of the proportion of the human genome occupied by TEs has varied widely, between one-half and two-thirds."
"Another large fraction of the genome consists of highly repetitive DNA. These regions are extremely variable even amongst individuals of the same population (hence their use as “DNA fingerprints”) and can expand or contract through processes such as unequal crossing over or replication slippage. Many repeats are thought to be derived from truncated TEs, but others consist of tandem arrays of di- and trinucleotides [30]. As with TEs, some highly repetitive sequences play a role in gene regulation (for example, [31]). Others, such as telomeric- and centromeric-associated repeats [32], [33], play critical roles in chromosomal maintenance. Despite this, there is currently no evidence that the majority of highly repetitive elements are functional."
And so on.
We can identify pseudogenes and mutated TEs because enough of their sequence remains intact to see sequence identity with more intact versions.
Thus, it should be a piece of cake for you to find many examples of original Wolf-kind alleles that have been degraded via mutation (which you claim does not exist... or something) in dog genomes.
Can't wait!
Maybe you can ask Jeff Tomkins to look into it - maybe he can take a break from nitpicking real science (and getting exposed as being deceptive) and actually try to find support for YECism.
See above.
Waiting for your supporting evidence that counters what we know.
I am aware that this is what ancient superstitious numerologists wrote, yes.
How do we "understand" that given what the bible actually says?
I already debunked this ignorance - more than once - but I thought I would pull up some refutations from the previous times he's made these silly claims - I should also point out that others have also explained his errors to him.
Please understand that the above quote is what justa interprets to mean that the Grants declared that hybridization CREATES new alleles, as opposed to what anyone that understands basic genetics will see - that hybridization merely INTRODUCES new alleles into a different population. Hybridization does NOT 'create' new alleles. Why creationists cannot understand this is a most interesting phenomenon.
I should also point out that when I had debunked this claim before, I also pointed out that the paper he chose to cite to prop up his unfounded claims also contained a devastating rebuke for his claim that all extant diversity arises from hybriodization:
" Despite the low production of hybrids, by 2007, over 30% of the population of G. scandens possessed alleles whose origin could be traced back to G. fortis. The two populations had become more similar to each other morphologically and genetically..."
Sort of blows the whole Asians arose via hybridization (between which populations? He never says) thing out of the water - hybridization, according to justa's own citation, DECREASES variation, it does not create it.
Love that unwitting projection.
Hilarious, for many reasons.
Thank you so much for the lesson in genetics! But, please tell me what does "DIVERGED" mean in your quote?
Are you claiming that DIVERGENCE is produced by hybridization?
If so, who hybridized with who to get the 'modern gray wolf' FROM the extinct european wolf?
You don't understand the material well enough to see how you keep contradicting yourself, that is true.
The mixing of alleles sure is important - but you continue to simply ignore a simple fact - those alleles don't just pop out of nowhere, and they are NOT produced via hybridization (though I do detect the groundwork for a "I knew it all along" escape/defense at some point - pity that your old posts will be there to embarrass you for some time).
Wow... OK...
Interbreeding gave us Asians and Africans.
But in the post I am responding to (and all of your previous posts on this subject), all you can seem to 'document' is a homogenization of forms via hybridization (from the Grant paper). Your ignorance of genetics and populations and such informed you that because they found hybridization was more important locally in the short term that new alleles produced via mutation were, that ALL variation must be produced that way - but once you got your money quote, you stopped reading (or couldn't understand any other parts), like where they explained that the hybrids exhibited LESS diversity.
So, in the Grant paper, what you fail to grasp, is that the individual species that interbred had to come from somewhere - they came from a long-term acquisition of NEW alleles, and the more recent rounds of hybridization were due to rapid changes in habitat.
Another quote from the paper that I pointed out to you before that fell on deaf ears:
“Introgressive hybridization is effective in increasing genetic variation because it simultaneously affects numerous genetic loci. The total effect on continuously varying traits can be up to two or three orders of magnitude greater than mutation (Grant & Grant 1994).”
Do you know what a continuous trait is?
A continuous trait is one that exists along a continuum - like height. They do not create 'new' traits.
Enough of the Grant misinterpretations - this page from another thread:
Asking for interpretations of this cladogram
contains some of my previous rebuttals to justa's silly misinterpretations and such, no need to reinvent the wheel.
Ok, wow... UM...
A phylogenetic analysis does NOT seek to find the mutated alleles of the original kind...
My gosh...
I mean, did you even look at the picture on that webpage? No wolves were even in the analysis!
Did you bother to click the link to see the actual scientific paper? Of course not! More in a moment...
LOL!!
Um.. No - 1. that cladogram only referred to modern domestic dog breeds, not ALL canids.
2. The root of the tree is unlabeled, so you cannot even claim that it 'goes back to 2'.
Also - I do enjoy demonstrating that you do not even read, much less understand, the things you reference.
If you had actually read the paper, you would have seen:
"Our analyses were designed to detect recent admixture; therefore, we were able to identify hybridization events that are described in written breed histories and stud-book records. Using the most reliably dated crosses that produced modern breeds, we established a linear relationship between the total length of haplotype sharing and the age of an admixture event, occurring between 35 and 160 years before present (ybp) "
So unless you think all dogs 'hybridized' away from a single species (impossible!) of wolf in 160 years... Well, never mind. Suffice it to say this is a huge fail on your part.
But I digress.
Ok - I need to copy paste this line from justa here again:
"By golly, look how they all lead backwards to just two.................... Oh my, imagine that, but you shouldn't have to imagine, you were already told that."
Keep that in mind for a second - he says it traces back to just 2 -
So is it "just two" or "a group"?
And 40,000 years ago? Oh, right - this is where you accept the part that you misinterpret to support your claim but reject the parts that don't.
Great.
And?
From the actual research paper that press release was based on:
"By calibrating the mutation rate using our oldest dog, we narrow the timing of dog domestication to 20,000–40,000 years ago. "
Mutation rate? What?
UH-OH:
"Furthermore, we detect an additional ancestry component in the End Neolithic sample, consistent with admixture from a population of dogs located further east that may have migrated concomitant with steppe people associated with Late Neolithic and Early Bronze age cultures, such as the Yamnaya and Corded Ware culture."
So much for that "single wolf kind" magically diversifying via hybridization with... itself.. to magically create diversity by somehow mixing up its already present alleles...
Unless you want to posit at least 2 creation events of the original dog-kind?
And it gets worse for you, pally:
"Our results are consistent with continuity of a European-like genetic ancestry from modern dogs through the entire Neolithic period. However, the slightly displaced position of the ancient samples from the European cluster in the PCAs (particularly for CTC) suggests a complex history. We therefore performed unsupervised clustering analyses with ADMIXTURE (SNP array data; Supplementary Fig. 15) and NGSadmix (whole-genome data; Fig. 4 and Supplementary Fig. 16) (Supplementary Note 9) and found that, unlike contemporary European village dogs, all three ancient genomes possess a significant ancestry component that is present in modern Southeast Asian dogs. This component appears only at very low levels in a minority of modern European village dogs. Furthermore, CTC harbours an additional component that is found predominantly in modern Indian village as well as in Central Asian (Afghan, Mongolian and Nepalese), and Middle Eastern (Saudi Arabian and Qatari) dogs (concordant with its position in the PCA), as well as some wolf admixture."
So, sure, MODERN European dog breeds can be traced back to a GROUP of dogs, but ALL MODERN dogs show a MIXTURE of genetic inputs from multiple earlier dog populations.
Looks like it is back to the drawing board for your "hybridization all the way down" farce.
I also suggest you stop relying on press releases, and even more strongly suggest you stop pretending to make scientific arguments until after you take a few years-worth of college classes on the relevant science.
MASSIVE FAIL.
Pity that your 'references' completely contradict your layman's conclusion.
The saddest part is that the Dunning-Kruger effect is so powerful in you that you will actually think you somehow proved your point and DIDN'T, yet again, make a fool of yourself.
Genetics. Try looking up how the junk DNA or non-functional DNA originated sometime.
Its junk and non-functional, because that is what mutations cause to happen to functioning genomes. And it is 100% compatible, which is again why you provide no sources in contradiction.
I thought you were aware of what the Bible said? Are you not aware that part of Adam was used to create Eve?
And in light of todays knowledge, we understand it is the genome which is taken half from the male, and half from the female, and united again to become one flesh or life.
That's Funny, the Grants through over 25 years of actual observation and testing found just the opposite of what you claim to be true in the real world, under natural conditions.Through centuries of selective breeding premised on the acquisition of new alleles (not "allies') via mutation. Since that is where new alleles come from - not from hybridization.
"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."
Your claims fall woefully short of reality.
Hilarious, for many reasons.How easily the non-biologist question-begging creationist forgets that most dog breeds are produced via the selective breeding of different breeds.
Where did those different breeds come from in the first place, if we started out with wolves?
How easily the evolutionists like to forget the DNA data.
Origin of the domestic dog - Wikipedia
"DNA evidence indicates that the dog, the modern gray wolf (above) and the now-extinct Taimyr wolf diverged from a now extinct wolf that once lived in Europe."
But you wont even accept the evolutionists own field proven evidence about hybridization being two to three orders of magnitude greater than that introduced by mutation. So I wouldnt expect you to understand, since all you can hold in your head are thoughts of useless mutations.
Not as astonishing as the fact that you main argument - Asian+ African yields Afro-Asian despite not being able to explain where an African or Asian came from in the first place.
Told you 100 times, the same way we got dogs from wolves, interbreeding. But from above it seems you have not yet accepted the genetic facts about dogs, so I can understand your confusion.
Tell you what genius - if you think you are correct, and that dog breeding is analogous to getting all of the human 'races' we have today from a single breeding pair of middle easterners in just a few thousand years, how about you look at the wolf genome:
The wolf reference genome sequence ( Canis lupus lupus ) and its implications for Canis spp. population genomics
and compare it to a handful of dog breeds. Surely you should be able to find that the wolf genome possesses ALL of the alleles that these other breeds do.
Its already been compared, didnt you read anything?
Dog family tree reveals how modern breeds came to be | CBC News
By golly, look how they all lead backwards to just two.................... Oh my, imagine that, but you shouldn't have to imagine, you were already told that.
"According to the study’s authors, the results of this analysis suggest that all modern-day dogs originated from a single group of wolves domesticated around 40,000 years ago in Europe.
“Given the high degree of sharing of sweeps [genetic signatures] between these ancient samples and modern samples, it seems clear that these dogs descend from a single domestication origin,” Adam Boyko, a geneticist at Cornell University who was not involved in the work, told The Washington Post in an email.
I mean please, they can trace their lineage genetically all the way back to those wolves. Your arguments are false and inconsistent with DNA data. Accept the facts and get over it already....
And he never did...No difference at all - you simply do not understand any of this and cannot face that simple fact due to your egotism.
" If the larynx needs a signal from the aortic arch that loop is a great way to facilitate the 'my heart was in my throat' response."
Please provide evidence that "the aortic arch" sends motor input to the larynx. Via the RLN.
Oh - you forgot to admit that your links totally did not help your cause at all! Trying to bury that now? Too bad - I will keep reminding everyone.
You are not an honest broker, too many trollish habits.
Like:
Repetition of debunked assertions
Responding only to a small or even tangential issue in very long posts and ignoring the rest
Asking others for sources then ignoring the sources when they are given
Refusing to provide actual support for claims
Playing martyr when people expose and exploit your trollish habits
etc.
Like this:
Was the entirety of the IQ of 135 creationist super-genius' response to this:
You implied you know about Gray's anatomy, right?
By the way - I ALREADY provided you with a source, but you probably just didn't bother to read it. Creationists are like that - they don't actually want to know how little they know.
So, since you think Google U makes you the expert you pretend to be, I found these in a couple of minutes:
The Neural Basis of Speech and Language (this is the one I linked for you before and you clearly ignored or more likely could not understand)
http://samples.jbpub.com/9781449652678/74738_CH02_FINAL.pdf
Vagus Nerve
http://www.caam.rice.edu/~cox/wrap/vagusnerve.pdf
Why, even Wiki:
General visceral afferent fibers - Wikipedia
From here:
Same source, on the special visceral afferent fibers - uh uh! this one actually mentions the larynx! Maybe this will be my Waterloo, and will provide evidence for the creationist's anatomical assertions?
General visceral afferent fibers
The general visceral afferent fibers (GVA) conduct sensory impulses (usually pain or reflex sensations) from the internal organs, glands, and blood vessels to the central nervous system.[1] They are considered to be part of the autonomic nervous system. However, unlike the efferent fibers of the autonomic nervous system, the afferent fibers are not classified as either sympathetic or parasympathetic.[2]
GVA fibers create referred pain by activating general somatic afferent fibers where the two meet in the posterior grey column.
The cranial nerves that contain GVA fibers include the facial nerve (CN VII), the glossopharyngeal nerve (CN IX), and the vagus nerve (CN X).[3]
Generally, they are insensitive to cutting, crushing or burning, excessive tension in smooth muscle and some pathological conditions produce visceral pain (referred pain).[4]
Pathway
Abdomen
In the abdomen, general visceral afferent fibers usually accompany sympathetic efferent fibers. This means that a signal traveling in an afferent fiber will begin at sensory receptors in the afferent fiber's target organ, travel up to the ganglion where the sympathetic efferent fiber synapses, continue back along a splanchnic nerve from the ganglion into the sympathetic trunk, move into a ventral ramus via a white ramus communicans, and finally move into the mixed spinal nerve between the division of the rami and the division of the roots of the spinal nerve. The GVA pathway then diverges from the sympathetic efferent pathway, which follows the ventral root into the spinal column, by following the dorsal root into the dorsal root ganglion, where the cell body of the visceral afferent nerve is located.[5] Finally, the signal continues along the dorsal root from the dorsal root ganglion to a region of gray matter in the dorsal horn of the spinal column where it is transmitted via a synapse to a neuron in the central nervous system.[2]
The only GVA nerves in the abdomen that do not follow the above pathway are those that innervate structures in the distal half of the sigmoid colon and the rectum. These afferent fibers, instead, follow the path of parasympathetic efferent fibers back to the vertebral column, where the afferent fibers enter the S2-S4 sensory (dorsal root) ganglia followed by the spinal cord.[5]
Pelvis
The course of GVA fibers from organs in the pelvis, in general, depends on the organ's position relative to the pelvic pain line. An organ, or part of an organ, in the pelvis is said to be "above the pelvic pain line" if it is in contact with the peritoneum, except in the case of the large intestine, where the pelvic pain line is said to be located in the middle of the sigmoid colon.[6] GVA fibers from structures above the pain line follow the course of the sympathetic efferent fibers, and GVA fibers from structures below the pain line follow the course of the parasympathetic efferents.[6] Pain from the latter fibers is less likely to be consciously experienced.[6]
References
Moore, Keith; Anne Agur (2007). Essential Clinical Anatomy, Third Edition. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. p. 635. ISBN 0-7817-6274-X.
Moore, Keith; Anne Agur (2007). Essential Clinical Anatomy, Third Edition. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. pp. 34–35. ISBN 0-7817-6274-X.
Mehta, Samir et al. Step-Up: A High-Yield, Systems-Based Review for the USMLE Step 1. Baltimore, MD: LWW, 2003.
Susan,, Standring,. Gray's anatomy : the anatomical basis of clinical practice. ISBN 9780702052309. OCLC 920806541.
Moore, K.L., & Agur, A.M. (2007). Essential Clinical Anatomy: Third Edition. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. 180. ISBN 978-0-7817-6274-8
Moore, Keith; Anne Agur (2007). Essential Clinical Anatomy, Third Edition. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. p. 220. ISBN 0-7817-6274-X.
Special visceral afferent fibers (SVA) are the afferent fibers that develop in association with the gastrointestinal tract.[1] They carry the special senses of smell (olfaction) and taste (gustation). The cranial nerves containing SVA fibers are the olfactory nerve (I), the facial nerve (VII), the glossopharyngeal nerve (IX), trigeminal nerve (V) and the vagus nerve (X). The facial nerve receives taste from the anterior two-thirds of the tongue; the glossopharyngeal from the posterior third. SVA fibers in the vagus originate in the larynx and pharynx.[2] The sensory processes, using their primary cell bodies from the inferior ganglion, send projections to the medulla, from which they travel in the tractus solitarius, later terminating at the rostral nucleus solitarius.[3]Nope. Just more evidence that the creationist is out of his depth and that his claim of studying anatomy was a farce.
And wiki again on the RLN:
Recurrent laryngeal nerve - Wikipedia
Now please provide an actual source that shows that motor impulses for vocalizations can be produced anywhere other than the Nucleus ambiguus (which in turn receives inputs from the motor speech area).
Surely you know what that is, what with your keen grasp of the relevant anatomy, right?
Of course, you would have had to understand anatomy enough to know what to search for (e.g., vagus nerve, visceral afferents, etc.) which you obviously do not (and remember that according to you, if something is obvious it must be so). This is why your keyword search technique has, every time I have seen you employ it thus far, ended up making you look foolish for linking to articles that actually undermine your position.
Funny - note that I was easily able to provide sources that actually do support my position, yet the creationist cannot seem to be able to do it ever.
PREDICTION - this will be responded to with first a one or two liner blow off, probably bringing up some ancillary subject, and perhaps later with a tangential link to a creationist essay.
Bets?
Still waiting:
" This is a visceral reaction (the 'mind' of the body) influencing the function of the throat and voice box without the direction of the brain. The signal gets there via the RLN in the case of the giraffe."
Please provide evidence that 1. such a neural pathway exists and 2. that is actually functions in the manner you keep asserting.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?