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.
No, that is your false assumption that only mutation leads to alleles. Not supported by any evidence as their had to be alleles to begin with before any mutation could ever change them.....
Justa didn’t someone ever tell you that a change in a gene affects more than just the obvious visible traits .Exactly, and the only mutation found was one affecting coat color (Star depigmentation), while the changes in snout, ears, legs and tail was simply due to breeding for tameability.....
"It seems unlikely that these similar trends of morphological and physiological transformation of different domestic animals depend on homologous independent mutations of structural homologous genes. The Russian evolutionary biologist Belyaev has suggested more than 50 years ago that domestication might involve other mechanisms contributing to phenotypic variation, mainly regulatory changes in gene activity during development."
"The rigorous selection of the silver fox solely for tameability brought about correlated changes in certain features of behavior, physiology and morphology."
But it isn't just breeding for tamability, but just being in a position where they are amendable to domestication....
"In the domesticated foxes, morphological aberrations such as floppy ears and curly tails occurred in addition to changes in standard coat colour. These morphological traits are also characteristic of many domesticates, mainly dogs (Fig. 4 F-J). At the more advanced steps of selection, changes in the parameters of the skeletal system began to arise. They included shortened legs, tail, snout, upper jaw and widened skull (Fig. 4).
Some of the phenotypic changes appeared not only in the domesticated foxes, but also in those of the farm-bred populations, not subjected to selection for tameability (Table 2). The above observations suggest a relation between selection for tameability and the appearance of a subset of phenotypic changes marking domestic animals. The appearance of some phenotypic changes in the foxes of the nonselected populations is not at variance with this suggestion. These populations have been bred in captivity for about a hundred years, during which period they have been inevitably subjected to selection for adaptation to captivity or amenability to domestication."
However the same morphological changes ocuurred regardless of what species is used or even the biological order...... So I really hope "random mutation" isn't suggested in this thread by the die-hard mutation supporters.....
"However, domestication of different populations of one species, different species, or even orders as well as selection of foxes for tameability is consistently associated with the same morphological and physiological changes. This remarkable parallelism can be hardly regarded as usual correlated responses to selection for any quantitative character. In addition, the reproductive performance of all animals under domestication improved, in contrast to what happened in the case of the correlated responses in terms of traditional quantitative genetics."
And hence their conclusion:
"Finally, it is difficult to interpret the changes in the domesticated foxes as a result of randomly arisen new mutations. Thus, in the same litter of phenotypically standard parents, even in the same offspring of such parents, referred, as a rule, to the tame elite, there appeared several different changes in the standard phenotype (Fig. 5A). This is incompatible with the mutational nature of their appearance. The results of the genetic analysis of morphological changes are also incompatible with the view that each phenotypic alteration is due to a single independent gene; the offspring of parents with one or another morphological alteration, contrary to expectation, showed quite different morphological changes. Only the Star depigmentation phenotype showed an independent genetic basis. The results of genetic analysis of the other phenotypic changes demonstrated that a common genetic basis may underlie the set of different morphological aberrations. All this strongly suggests that the phenotypic variation in the domesticated fox population may result from changes caused by selection for tameability in the regulation of development by the key genes."
There is not a single biologist that believes the morphological changes observed where the results of independently random mutations across species and orders, but were instead brought about by regulatory changes in the genes through breeding for tameability...
. Before the Fall there was no death? You do realize that this makes Adam and Eve syndactyls . Fused digits - toes and fingers. The fingers and toes form during fetal development by parts of the paddle shaped hand or foot dying away .Remember that you can't take one creationist and generalize their opinions to all creationists. Every creationist must have a chance to try falsifying your claims.
Sorry, I couldn't find studies on dogs' genetic distances, only ones proving that only a couple genes cause big differences in their appearance. I am not really sure about human races vs. dog breeds. Races appear to be only a social construct, because dogs are bred through natural selection while humans are not.
In creation science baramins are the original types of animals, plants, fungi etc. God created in the beginning. These had potential for great genetic variation. Before the Fall, evolution couldn't happen because there was no death and thus no natural selection. But after it, these baramins began to differ into the species we know today (and some extinct). As an example, all big cats such as tigers and lions, and domestic cats, have their evolutionary roots in a single kind of cat-baramin.
. Before the Fall there was no death? You do realize that this makes Adam and Eve syndactyls . Fused digits - toes and fingers. The fingers and toes form during fetal development by parts of the paddle shaped hand or foot dying away .
Cat baramin ? Well there is Felis , but you also have Panthera, Neofelis and other genera including some extinct ones. Felis - house cats
Panthera - lions and tigers
Neofelis- snow leopard
We don’t think they are the same kind or they’d all be in the same genus
You won't accept the only valid explanation..... you are still caught up in the epicycles of life from non-life by random chance......Then where did they come from? What is the mechanism by which alleles are formed if not from mutations?
And for the record we're not talking about distribution of alleles in a population (i.e. genetic variation). Rather I want you to explain how alleles in populations originate in the first place. Explain the mechanism.
Why not you accept spontaneous generation and no one can explain what that is..... You accept species but can't explain what that is without then ignoring it and obfuscating the issue.....Certainly not if no one can explain what that is.
Why not you accept spontaneous generation and no one can explain what that is.....
Why not you accept spontaneous generation and no one can explain what that is..... You accept species but can't explain what that is without then ignoring it and obfuscating the issue.....
“Spontaneous generation”? I thought you were a stickler for scientific definitions?
It’s ok to deliberately misuse terminology if you think it allows you a snide dig though?
You can't explain how they formed with mutations.... mutations are errors in the copying process. You must first have an allele to copy before you can make an error copying it.... otherwise mutations would be creating new alleles today where none existed before as well.... Since we don't observe this, we can rule it out as a possibility.....You're waffling.
I asked you to explain how alleles were formed if not from mutations. Can you answer that question?
Creationists simply don’t do science. It’s not a matter of funding. Any televangelist makes more money that scientists doIn a model where God creates humans directly, separating fingers or adding a bellybutton is no problem.
Also, the borders of baramins don't have to follow the genus of biological taxonomy.
Creationism has lots of speculation and few actual scientific studies, because it's not funded as well as "traditional" evolutionary biology. God's Word is not widely accepted, which makes peer-reviewing and publishing creationist articles hard.
Hox genes! Copied and changed 4 times in mammals. Same genes in a fruit fly . They’re body patterning genes for bilaterians ( worms of all types, arthropods, mollusks, chordates etc.You can't explain how they formed with mutations.... mutations are errors in the copying process. You must first have an allele to copy before you can make an error copying it.... otherwise mutations would be creating new alleles today where none existed before as well.... Since we don't observe this, we can rule it out as a possibility.....
The ones that when mutated are usually lethal????Hox genes! Copied and changed 4 times in mammals. Same genes in a fruit fly . They’re body patterning genes for bilaterians ( worms of all types, arthropods, mollusks, chordates etc.
No, the bankers that the government borrows the money from to fund the billion dollar experiments make all the money......Creationists simply don’t do science. It’s not a matter of funding. Any televangelist makes more money that scientists do
You can't explain how they formed with mutations.... mutations are errors in the copying process. You must first have an allele to copy before you can make an error copying it.... otherwise mutations would be creating new alleles today where none existed before as well.... Since we don't observe this, we can rule it out as a possibility.....
More waffling.
You don't have an answer.
Neither do you as we are seeing......
But I'd suggest they were put together the same way the exact same protons, neutrons and electrons that make up molecules that are the same in our genetic structure were put together....by the laws of the Creator.....certainly not random chance.....
Not randomly.....Okay. How was that done?
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?