Does science actually admit "design"?

[Justatruthseeker]

Human variation: source, mutation
Dog variation: source, mutation

It's really not that hard.

Except we know from genetic DNA testing, and also with actual tests with Russian Red Foxes, that merely selecting for tamability is the cause of variation in dogs.

You need to stop fooling yourself and just accept the truth. They claim mutation takes millions of years, yet over 100 breeds of dogs were produced in a few thousand, and it had nothing to do with mutations.

A Soviet scientist created the only tame foxes in the world

“The process was surprisingly quick. "By intense selective breeding, we have compressed into a few decades an ancient process that originally unfolded over thousands of years," wrote Trut in 1999.

The fox experiment showed that just by selecting for friendliness, all these other changes, including an increase in social skills, happened by accident."

In fact, Belyaev and Trut soon found that it was not just the foxes' personalities that were changing. Their bodies were too.

"The main surprise was that, together with changing of behaviour, many new morphological traits in tame foxes start to appear from the first steps of selection," said Trut.

The domesticated foxes had floppier, drooping ears, which are found in other domestic animals such as dogs, cats, pigs, horses and goats. Curlier tails – also found in dogs and pigs – were also recorded.

All these changes were brought on by selecting for one trait: tameability

What's more, "in only a few generations, the friendly foxes were showing changes in coat colour," says Hare.

The process seems to be ongoing. "At the more advanced steps of selection, changes in the parameters of the skeletal system began to arise," Trut wrote. "They included shortened legs, tail, snout, upper jaw, and widened skull."“

Again, we need no fantasy mutations to explain what in reality happens with interbreeding. Just to accept the facts of reality and stop denying it to uphold one’s outdated and dead beliefs of mutation.

No, what you confuse as mutation is simply selective breeding, but without man directly interfering in the wild, the process can take thousands to millions of years for select traits to be bred into a population. Mutation is useless and you just need to face up to the fact it had no bearing on dogs whatsoever, and relating that to every other animal, no bearing on their selective traits as well. Why evolutionists can’t accept the facts of actual breeding programs with animals is confounding. But then that’s why mutation has been all but abandoned in plant and animal breeding programs, as it was found to produce nothing new after the first few minor changes.

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

Not that I expect you to accept the actual results of real experiments with breeding animals, but to only believe the hype and PR your high priests proclaim from their pulpits.

 

[Shemjaza]

Except we know from genetic DNA testing, and also with actual tests with Russian Red Foxes, that merely selecting for tamability is the cause of variation in dogs.

You need to stop fooling yourself and just accept the truth. They claim mutation takes millions of years, yet over 100 breeds of dogs were produced in a few thousand, and it had nothing to do with mutations.

A Soviet scientist created the only tame foxes in the world

“The process was surprisingly quick. "By intense selective breeding, we have compressed into a few decades an ancient process that originally unfolded over thousands of years," wrote Trut in 1999.

The fox experiment showed that just by selecting for friendliness, all these other changes, including an increase in social skills, happened by accident."

In fact, Belyaev and Trut soon found that it was not just the foxes' personalities that were changing. Their bodies were too.

"The main surprise was that, together with changing of behaviour, many new morphological traits in tame foxes start to appear from the first steps of selection," said Trut.

The domesticated foxes had floppier, drooping ears, which are found in other domestic animals such as dogs, cats, pigs, horses and goats. Curlier tails – also found in dogs and pigs – were also recorded.

All these changes were brought on by selecting for one trait: tameability

What's more, "in only a few generations, the friendly foxes were showing changes in coat colour," says Hare.

The process seems to be ongoing. "At the more advanced steps of selection, changes in the parameters of the skeletal system began to arise," Trut wrote. "They included shortened legs, tail, snout, upper jaw, and widened skull."“

Again, we need no fantasy mutations to explain what in reality happens with interbreeding. Just to accept the facts of reality and stop denying it to uphold one’s outdated and dead beliefs of mutation.

No, what you confuse as mutation is simply selective breeding, but without man directly interfering in the wild, the process can take thousands to millions of years for select traits to be bred into a population. Mutation is useless and you just need to face up to the fact it had no bearing on dogs whatsoever, and relating that to every other animal, no bearing on their selective traits as well. Why evolutionists can’t accept the facts of actual breeding programs with animals is confounding. But then that’s why mutation has been all but abandoned in plant and animal breeding programs, as it was found to produce nothing new after the first few minor changes.

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

Not that I expect you to accept the actual results of real experiments with breeding animals, but to only believe the hype and PR your high priests proclaim from their pulpits.

Where did I claim it always takes millions of years? The vast majority of dog breeds are from after recorded history.

Your concepts of genetics are nonsense. Wolves don't have all the traits of dogs, and there's no evidence that that ever did.

If the needed traits are in the population you can breed for it, but individuals can not carry dozens of different variations of the same trait.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Religion claims to answer questions, but I submit that there isn't a single question about the world that religion provides a meaningfull answer to.

Perhaps you should study the bible; lot's of great answers to our problems in there. For example God advises getting an education and/or a job or career before getting married and having a family. If this were followed many social ills would decline. What is ironic is that more educated people are actually successfully doing this, unaware of the ancient biblical advice, while at the same time debunking biblical advice generally. Stranger still is the general rejection of the 'common sense' found in the Proverbs in favor of 'critical thinking', which in the end yields the same advice in many cases (but without the tuition costs).

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Where did I claim it always takes millions of years? The vast majority of dog breeds are from after recorded history.

Your concepts of genetics are nonsense. Wolves don't have all the traits of dogs, and there's no evidence that that ever did.

If the needed traits are in the population you can breed for it, but individuals can not carry dozens of different variations of the same trait.

And yet their isnt a single biologist or genticist that agrees with you. All agree dogs descended from wolves, so regardless of your beliefs, the facts show wolves do indeed have all the genes needed within them.

But then that's probably why they admit the Russian Red Fox experiment shows how dogs came about.

But i expected nothing less than denial of reality from an evolutionist in support of their unfounded belief of mutations.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

But then that's why the Grants came to the same conclusion after studying finches in real life.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1994.tb01313.x

"New additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization is estimated to be two to three orders of magnitude greater than that introduced by mutation."

Mutation theory is dead, but its just hard to drive the stake into the heart of that vampire when people keep squirming around the truth and refuse to accept it.

 

[Shemjaza]

And yet their isnt a single biologist or genticist that agrees with you. All agree dogs descended from wolves, so regardless of your beliefs, the facts show wolves do indeed have all the genes needed within them.

But then that's probably why they admit the Russian Red Fox experiment shows how dogs came about.

But i expected nothing less than denial of reality from an evolutionist in support of their unfounded belief of mutations.

What is wrong with you? NO GENETICIST AGREES WITH YOUR WEIRD MEGA TRAIT DNA IDEA.

Of course dogs are descended from wolves!

There are many traits in wolves that are present in dogs... and part of that is winnowing out some traits in wolves that make bad pets, as seen in the fox experiment.

However, many other traits were not present in the original wolf stock. All the weird body plan changes, some of the color patterns, leg structures and fur styles and patterns.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Of course dogs are descended from wolves!

There is some debate about that. (Google the topic, lot's of controversy.)

 

[Shemjaza]

There is some debate about that. (Google the topic, lot's of controversy.)

If not wolves, then very a very closely related species of wolf-dog things.

But one normal species, not a magical thing with all the possibilities of modern dogs in a couple of individuals.

 

[DogmaHunter]

the Bible is used as one of the most archeological accurate sources.

Perhaps it’s their interpretations at the start that are flawed. If I look at something with the wrong interpretation of it, I am sure I am going to come to the wrong conclusions.

lol!

Whatever you need to tell yourself, I guess.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Except we know from genetic DNA testing, and also with actual tests with Russian Red Foxes, that merely selecting for tamability is the cause of variation in dogs.

So during this selection process, what exactly is being selected for or against, in your opinion?

They claim mutation takes millions of years

Huh?

Mutations occur in every newborn......

A Soviet scientist created the only tame foxes in the world

“The process was surprisingly quick. "By intense selective breeding, we have compressed into a few decades an ancient process that originally unfolded over thousands of years," wrote Trut in 1999.

The fox experiment showed that just by selecting for friendliness, all these other changes, including an increase in social skills, happened by accident."

Yes, it is a wonderfull demonstration of the power of evolution through selection processes.

All these changes were brought on by selecting for one trait: tameability

Neat, isn't it?
How you can steer the development of a species, by simply selecting for/against certain heritable traits.

Again, we need no fantasy mutations to explain what in reality happens with interbreeding. Just to accept the facts of reality and stop denying it to uphold one’s outdated and dead beliefs of mutation.

lol

How do you breath, with your head lodged so deep into the ground?

Why evolutionists can’t accept the facts of actual breeding programs with animals is confounding

It's you who isn't accepting the facts.
It's you who's pointing to successtories of evolution by selection and then pretending that they are evidence "against" evolution.

You make absolutely zero sense.

Not that I expect you to accept the actual results of real experiments with breeding animals, but to only believe the hype and PR your high priests proclaim from their pulpits.

Always funny to see a creationist try to "insult" scientifically literate people by calling scientists "high priests".

Irony....

 

[Ophiolite]

There is some debate about that. (Google the topic, lot's of controversy.)

The controversy, such as it is, consists of debate as to whether dogs evolved from wolves once, or on two or more separate occassions.

Let's put that put more clearly. Conflicting hypotheses:

Dogs evolved from wolves on one occassion.
Dogs evolved from wolves on two or more occassions.

Do you notice the common theme of these conflicting** hypotheses? That's right. In both cases dogs are said to have evolved from wolves. Either you didn't understand what you have read, or you were trying to obfuscate the picture. Which was it?


**I'm not sure it is even accurate to call them conflicting hypotheses. My impression is that the second hypothesis has simply replaced the first. That's how science works. As we learn more we refine our hypotheses and theories.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Perhaps you should study the bible; lot's of great answers to our problems in there. For example God advises getting an education and/or a job or career before getting married and having a family. If this were followed many social ills would decline. What is ironic is that more educated people are actually successfully doing this, unaware of the ancient biblical advice, while at the same time debunking biblical advice generally. Stranger still is the general rejection of the 'common sense' found in the Proverbs in favor of 'critical thinking', which in the end yields the same advice in many cases (but without the tuition costs).

I was talking about questions concerning how reality works. Not social organization.

Also, tell it to all the women who were oppressed for millenia and confined to the kitchen sink and the baby diapers by their husbands waving a bible.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The controversy, such as it is, consists of debate as to whether dogs evolved from wolves once, or on two or more separate occassions.

Let's put that put more clearly. Conflicting hypotheses:

Dogs evolved from wolves on one occassion.
Dogs evolved from wolves on two or more occassions.

Do you notice the common theme of these conflicting** hypotheses? That's right. In both cases dogs are said to have evolved from wolves. Either you didn't understand what you have read, or you were trying to obfuscate the picture. Which was it?


**I'm not sure it is even accurate to call them conflicting hypotheses. My impression is that the second hypothesis has simply replaced the first. That's how science works. As we learn more we refine our hypotheses and theories.

So the 'common ancestor' theory is out?

 

[DogmaHunter]

That's how science works. As we learn more we refine our hypotheses and theories.

To a creationist, that is a reason to distrust science.
Because it means that it can get things wrong.

They'll say things like "the bible never required any changing!"

In reality, off course, the religion pretty much forbids changing it. And all that results in, is simply that they don't correct for the (obvious) mistakes in it. Thus they end up simply believing false things.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So the 'common ancestor' theory is out?

no

 

[Justatruthseeker]

lol!

Whatever you need to tell yourself, I guess.

Exactly, whatever you need to tell yourself to keep your fantasies alive.

Is The Bible A Reliable Historical Source?

"The number of archaeological digs providing rock-solid support for the Bible grows year by year and today there are well over 50,000 digs at 30,000 different locations that have been excavated and some of these finds include the names of Belshazzar, King Darius, and King Cyrus’ and names like the Hittite’s who were once thought to be fictional but now have been found to be true. Even King David’s reign was found recorded on ancient Egyptian inscriptions and giving more substantial evidence of the historical accuracy of the Bible, the Regal House of Nebuchadnezzar and a stone tablet bearing Pontius Pilate’s name have been discovered. The number of archaeological finds that relate to what is recorded in Scripture cannot possibly be covered in one article for it could fill a book."

But people lie to themselves, regardless of the truth, to protect their fragile belief system of non-reliability.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I was talking about questions concerning how reality works. Not social organization.

Also, tell it to all the women who were oppressed for millenia and confined to the kitchen sink and the baby diapers by their husbands waving a bible.

I've got my material reality neatly organized. It's the behavior of others that I have to watch out for. I find that highly educated people don't have a 'hands on' grip of material reality, relying on others to do this for them.

Maybe you should read the bible and discover why all that misogyny (and why it isn't going away anytime soon).

 

[OldWiseGuy]

no

You didn't mention it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So the 'common ancestor' theory is out?

Why would it be, whether dogs came from one group of wolves or different groups bred on different continents, they came from wolves. Just as all men descended from Adam and Eve, whether they later spread to other continents they all have a "common ancestor" if you wish to look at it that way.

I am certainly not advocating Asians had a different ancestor in the beginning than Africans, is anyone?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Why would it be, whether dogs came from one group of wolves or different groups bred on different continents, they came from wolves. Just as all men descended from Adam and Eve, whether they later spread to other continents they all have a "common ancestor" if you wish to look at it that way.

I am certainly not advocating Asians had a different ancestor in the beginning than Africans, is anyone?

So all 'ruminants' sprang from a common ruminant? Lots of variety there.

Ruminant | suborder of mammals