Genesis genetics?

[Justatruthseeker]

Basically that happens because dogs have a lot of chromosomes. 70- something iirc . They simply have more genetic material to work with. Domestic dog breeds are breeding restricted small populations . It well known that genetic novelty even to the point of speciation (macroevolution) shows up best in small populations even among organisms that are not artificially bred by humans .

No, domestic dogs are "bred" into restrictive small populations by people that want a piece of paper saying their dog is a "pure" breed. If man didn't interfere, there would be a lot less breeds, over hundreds of thousands to millions of years as natural disasters, geological changes, famine, etc brought them together instead. The gene pool would then not be restricted to small populations, except as isolated by nature. Just as happens naturally and you confuse as evolution. What you see in dogs is what occurs naturally except on an accelerated timescale due to man interfering. Dogs remain dogs, they do not evolve into anything else, nor did they evolve from anything. They were bred from wolves, wolves still remain wolves. That is why every single fossil for every single creature found remains that creature from the oldest fossil to the youngest.

You simply can not tell what creature mated with what creature from a pile of bones, so are confused that one actually evolved into another. Sorry, that's not how we observe life to propagate. Asian remains Asian, African remains African, neither evolve into the Afro-Asian.

Evolution is supported by no single observation, it is pure theory, and a dead one at that.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Nice idea, but isn't supported by the evidence.

If all the diversity of modern humans (not to mention all the other "kinds") was found in the original specimens then degraded down to the modern animals then all the different phenotypes would have different junk DNA, but they don't.

And just why would the different races of humans have different junk DNA if all descended from the same stock? Only if they didn't would they have different junk DNA. You just supported my theory, not yours. Only if the changes were caused by RANDOM mutation, would the junk DNA that resulted from mutation be different and random. Since it isn't, we can rule out random mutation as the cause...... Its devastating to your theory of random mutations, not mine. If random mutations caused the separation of races, then they should have random junk DNA from those random mutations.

But under my theory it is quite logical that mice, humans and apes should have different junk DNA, since they did not originated from the same stock, but vast appearing similarities too as they were created all from the same basic building blocks.

The ancient wolves weren't super dogs with all the DNA of their descendants (even if that were possible), they were much like modern wolves. The variation we find in modern dogs is due to mutation then selection.

Your silly refrain of "Asian only begets Asian" is both wrong and doesn't actually make any sense given what we know about both paleontology and genetics.

No, you just don't know what race bred with what race, so propose a silly theory that one evolves into another.

Please show me an Asian that becomes anything other than an Asian without breeding with another race, or having done so in the past? Why you can't, and yet insist they don't remain the same until mating with another, even when you cant show anything different.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Why are you pretending that the “small dog mutation” hasn’t been brought to your attention?

Creationists really do have terrible memories.....

Or they are just liars.

Why are you pretending that i didn't already show you that they were just descended from middle eastern wolves unlike big dogs, from different wolves. But wolves still? Evolutionists seem to have a problem repeatedly bringing up falsified facts.

 

[Steve Petersen]

As we learn more about our universe, our mythology has to change.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Origin of Small Dogs Pinned Down


"The ancestor of all those Chihuahuas, spaniels and tiny terriers likely came from the Middle East, a new study finds.

All domestic dog breeds that exist in the world today in their myriad forms are the result of the domestication of the gray wolf. And gradually, as humans selected for traits they wanted in their dogs — herding ability, particular temperaments and size — dogs diversified.

And while this gene signature was absent in wolves, the IGF1 gene found in small dogs was most closely related to genes found in Middle Eastern gray wolf populations, which suggests that small domestic dogs arose there several thousand years ago."

So a closely related gene already existed in the Middle Eastern Grey wolf, or it couldn't be closely related, now could it.....

"The evidence suggests that small dogs evolved in the Middle East, but the exact progression of dog domestication is "still a little bit up in the air," Gray told LiveScience.

Reduced body size has been a common feature in domesticated animals compared with their wild ancestors, and has been seen in cattle, pigs and goats."

But there you go, ignoring cattle, pigs, goats and Red Foxes, as usual.

A Soviet scientist created the only tame foxes in the world

"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.""

Hmmm, looks like all that was needed was to breed them for tameability.

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

Don't need your incorrect beliefs at all.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

As we learn more about our universe, our mythology has to change.

And yet our mythology doesn't change, we just keep refining the epicycles of the Big bang and evolution, while ignoring all the falsifying data.

 

[pitabread]

Evolution is supported by no single observation, it is pure theory, and a dead one at that.

This is what creationists keep telling themselves. So how is that working out for ya?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This is what creationists keep telling themselves. So how is that working out for ya?

Pretty good actually. But that's why you present none in your defense, as you have none.

Shall we start with fossils that each and every one remain the same from the oldest for that type to the youngest? No, I dont expect you want to start there.

How about E coli remaining E coli despite countless mutations over generations? No, i don't suppose you want to start there either.

Much easier to just tell yourself and everyone you have evidence, when you have none.

 

[pitabread]

Pretty good actually. But that's why you present none in your defense, as you have none.

Like I've said many times on this forum, you can choose to accept or disregard anything in science you want. In the end, it's completely irrelevant. With or without you, science still marches on.

 

[Shemjaza]

And just why would the different races of humans have different junk DNA if all descended from the same stock? Only if they didn't would they have different junk DNA. You just supported my theory, not yours. Only if the changes were caused by RANDOM mutation, would the junk DNA that resulted from mutation be different and random. Since it isn't, we can rule out random mutation as the cause...... Its devastating to your theory of random mutations, not mine. If random mutations caused the separation of races, then they should have random junk DNA from those random mutations.

But under my theory it is quite logical that mice, humans and apes should have different junk DNA, since they did not originated from the same stock, but vast appearing similarities too as they were created all from the same basic building blocks.

Except you are wrong.

In your Hypothetical, all the phenotypes were present in the ancestor, then some failed and we got junk instead. The positions of the DNA should be consistent, and the junk different.

Impossible Adam / Wolf DNA:

[ --- Phenotype 1 --- | --- Phenotype 2 --- | --- Phenotype 3 --- | --- Phenotype 4 --- ]

Expected result:
[ --- Junk --- | --- Junk --- | --- Junk --- | --- Phenotype 4 --- ]
[ --- Junk --- | --- junk --- | --- Phenotype 3 --- | --- Junk --- ]
[ --- Junk --- | --- Phenotype 2 --- | --- junk --- | --- Junk --- ]
[ --- Phenotype 1 --- | --- Junk --- | --- Junk --- | --- Junk --- ]
And there's no reason the junk should be consistent.

However, what we actually get is:
[ --- Phenotype 1 --- | --- Junk --- | --- Junk --- | --- Junk --- ]
[ --- Phenotype 2 --- | --- Junk --- | --- Junk --- | --- Junk --- ]
[ --- Phenotype 3 --- | --- Junk --- | --- Junk --- | --- Junk --- ]
[ --- Phenotype 4 --- | --- Junk --- | --- Junk --- | --- Junk --- ]

And the junk is remarkedly consistent across the population with evidence of random mutation not selected for or against.

In some DNA it's the same across many species. And you know what? It's more consistent the closer related the species are due to active genes.

The mutations that cause the variation in the races are random changes in the genes that actually affect the individuals structure. Mutations in the non-coding "junk" DNA are basically neutral to survival and appearance.

No, you just don't know what race bred with what race, so propose a silly theory that one evolves into another.

Please show me an Asian that becomes anything other than an Asian without breeding with another race, or having done so in the past? Why you can't, and yet insist they don't remain the same until mating with another, even when you cant show anything different.

You have never explained how it is possible for extra genes in different locations can somehow become a diversity of traits in the same location.

I understand that you don't know how genetics works, but I really wish I could somehow make you understand this.

You can't make the diversity of modern humanity by starting with less diversity and not having mutations to create the genetic diversity.

Mega Diversity Adam or your magical mega-wolf-dog are not possible genetically... feel free to fall back on continuous miracle, because there is no scientific justification for your fantasy.

 

[Jimmy D]

Origin of Small Dogs Pinned Down


"The ancestor of all those Chihuahuas, spaniels and tiny terriers likely came from the Middle East, a new study finds.

All domestic dog breeds that exist in the world today in their myriad forms are the result of the domestication of the gray wolf. And gradually, as humans selected for traits they wanted in their dogs — herding ability, particular temperaments and size — dogs diversified.

And while this gene signature was absent in wolves, the IGF1 gene found in small dogs was most closely related to genes found in Middle Eastern gray wolf populations, which suggests that small domestic dogs arose there several thousand years ago."

So a closely related gene already existed in the Middle Eastern Grey wolf, or it couldn't be closely related, now could it.....

"The evidence suggests that small dogs evolved in the Middle East, but the exact progression of dog domestication is "still a little bit up in the air," Gray told LiveScience.

Reduced body size has been a common feature in domesticated animals compared with their wild ancestors, and has been seen in cattle, pigs and goats."

But there you go, ignoring cattle, pigs, goats and Red Foxes, as usual.

A Soviet scientist created the only tame foxes in the world

"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.""

Hmmm, looks like all that was needed was to breed them for tameability.

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

Don't need your incorrect beliefs at all.

Wow, what a dishonest post, I doubt anyone is that interested in engaging your persistent and repetitive nonsense any more but I did look at the paper you cited.

Is it just an unfortunate oversight that when you quoted the Dog article you omitted a paragraph that contradicts your nonsense?

People may not bother reading your ramblings anymore but in this instance they are actually worth looking at because they serve to high light the kind of dishonest tactics creationists need to stoop to.



You quoted.....


"The ancestor of all those Chihuahuas, spaniels and tiny terriers likely came from the Middle East, a new study finds.

All domestic dog breeds that exist in the world today in their myriad forms are the result of the domestication of the gray wolf. And gradually, as humans selected for traits they wanted in their dogs — herding ability, particular temperaments and size — dogs diversified.

And while this gene signature was absent in wolves, the IGF1 gene found in small dogs was most closely related to genes found in Middle Eastern gray wolf populations, which suggests that small domestic dogs arose there several thousand years ago."




What the article actually says, note the omitted paragraph (bolded)....


"The ancestor of all those Chihuahuas, spaniels and tiny terriers likely came from the Middle East, a new study finds.

All domestic dog breeds that exist in the world today in their myriad forms are the result of the domestication of the gray wolf. And gradually, as humans selected for traits they wanted in their dogs — herding ability, particular temperaments and size — dogs diversified.

Because "we've intensely selected for specific traits" in dogs, they make an ideal study animal to match genes to physical features and better understand how genes work, said study researcher Melissa Gray of UCLA.

Scientists have matched one particular gene, called IGF1, to small body size in dogs. To see if this gene existed in the various gray wolf populations of the world, Gray and her colleagues compared the DNA sequences of various domestic dog breeds to gray wolves from Alaska, Yellowstone, Spain, China and Israel, among other places.

They found that the wolves didn't posses this variant of the IGF1 gene, which shows that this mutation for small body size arose after dogs were first domesticated . But because all small dog breeds have some version of this gene, it likely arose early in the history of dogs, the researchers said.

And while this gene signature was absent in wolves, the IGF1 gene found in small dogs was most closely related to genes found in Middle Eastern gray wolf populations, which suggests that small domestic dogs arose there several thousand years ago."


So please spare us your hypocritical accusations of "ignoring science".

 

[DogmaHunter]

Pretty good actually. But that's why you present none in your defense, as you have none.

Shall we start with fossils that each and every one remain the same from the oldest for that type to the youngest? No, I dont expect you want to start there.

How about E coli remaining E coli despite countless mutations over generations? No, i don't suppose you want to start there either.

Much easier to just tell yourself and everyone you have evidence, when you have none.

What you say about fossils and e coli, only exposes how ignorant you are on this subject.

 

[tas8831]

I guess if in light of today's knowledge, one wishes to continue to believe it was a rib that was taken, and not half the genome, one may do so. The two shall become one flesh. It is when those two chromosomes reunite that a new life comes into being.

As you want to premise biology on the bible, please provide chapter and verse in which it is explained that half of Adam's genome was used (where did the other half come from?) as opposed to his 'side' or 'rib', and/or provide a rationale for interpreting 'side' or 'rib' as "half of his genome".

 

[tas8831]

On 1. So the main objection is not that diversity cannot be front loaded, but that there is no mechanism to hold back diversification from starting earlier? Is that correct?

In a sense - not from 'starting earlier', but from preventing until 'needed' (as it is often declared by advocates that when the situation warrants it, new 'adaptations' can arise.

I'm really just interested in front loading and whether there are any scientific objections to it being possible.

As indicated, a genetic mechanism whereby the unused alleles are 'turned off'. Additionally, the mechanism whereby certain alleles are "turned on" when appropriate, and further what happens to the un-needed alleles in the 'new Kind.' We can identify pseudogenes, for example, but we also can tell what genes they are similar to and such. If front loading were real, it seems that it should be easy for advocates to point to these turned-off alleles in wolves, for example, or to explain what happens to the un-needed alleles.

Obviously you reject the presented conclusion, but I'm wanting to know if the premise itself (front loaded dna) is deemed impossible through scientific discovery.

(Genuine question, open to anyone, not rhetoric)

Not that I am aware of, but as I imply, it could happen, but there is no evidence for it and the evidence we DO have is contrary to it. Plus there is no known mechanism for it to be viable, but other than that, hypothetically possible I suppose.

 

[tas8831]

By front loaded if you mean near perfect at the start and degrading over time, why of course, that's how we get non-functional DNA is through error over time, not a build up to perfection, but the reverse.

Cute assertions by a non-biologist. Cute but as usual, devoid of any rationale for acceptance.

Front loaded does NOT mean perfect. It means that it possessed all of the alleles necessary to produce 'sub-Kinds' without having to generate new ones via the actually generally understood processes that produce them.

 

[JackRT]

Genesis genetics?????

Genesis 30:37 Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches. 38 Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink, 39 they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted. 40 Jacob set apart the young of the flock by themselves, but made the rest face the streaked and dark-colored animals that belonged to Laban. Thus he made separate flocks for himself and did not put them with Laban’s animals. 41 Whenever the stronger females were in heat, Jacob would place the branches in the troughs in front of the animals so they would mate near the branches, 42 but if the animals were weak, he would not place them there. So the weak animals went to Laban and the strong ones to Jacob. 43 In this way the man grew exceedingly prosperous and came to own large flocks, and female and male servants, and camels and donkeys.

Perhaps this is an example of early satire.

 

[tas8831]

Of course they were, we got over 100 breeds of dogs from breeding one wolf stock. Why would we expect anything less from elephants or humans?

Then it should be a small task for a genetics expert such as yourself to compare the genome (or at least many of its genes) of a wolf and the genome of, say, to 'lesser' canids' genomes and locate all of the unique alleles in those lesser canids in the wolf's genome.

Hop to it!

Here is the dog genome:

Canis lupus familiaris (ID 85) - Genome - NCBI

 

[tas8831]

It is why evolutionary supporters hate discussing dogs, they show the wide range of variation possible without the need for any mutation at all, just simple, everyday interbreeding.

In reality, someone brings up dogs every time to re-post the same fantasies.

Saying that dogs are the product on interbreeding is not evidence for there being a front-loaded genome or that all of the "allies" needed are already there, just being rearranged. It is evidence that different groups of dogs accumulate different alleles (via actually understand mechanisms) which can then be mixed and matched with other breeds.

This has all been explained to you many times.

One can only wonder why your arguments remain unchanged.

 

[tas8831]

Why? But you really ought to do your own research. You claim that there was enough variability in the gene pool of the wolf to account for the variety of dogs we see today. Is it still there? Do modern wolves still have that degree of variability?

And if not, WHY not?

If they do, then either 'new' dog breeds should have smaller genomes than wolves, or there must be a mechanism that allows for creatures to turn off alleles that their phenotypes do not need.

Waiting for evidence of ANY of this stuff.

 

[tas8831]

"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."

A Soviet scientist created the only tame foxes in the world

So, I guess you are unfamiliar with linkage?

Of note:

"They selected the animals based on how they responded when their cage was opened. About 10% of the foxes displayed a weak "wild-response", meaning they were docile around humans."

Hmmm....

One should wonder why some foxes acted this way, while others did not. Maybe it was... I don't know.. Allelic variation?