DogmaHunter
Code Monkey
- Jan 26, 2014
- 16,757
- 8,531
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
Remind me again why interbreeding dogs and finches apparantly pose a problem for evolution theory?
Upvote
0
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.
I'm pretty sure you don't know what it means, since you think copies in different orders didn't copy what already existed, just in a new order. You know, like what happens with dogs, or finches that are interbreeding? Oh my fault, finch variety is because of natural selection, not because they are interbreeding under their noses.
Dont play coy. They insinuated skin color was the result of mutation. Whether its full dominance or partial dominance is irrelevant to the point being made.Depends on the genetics of these hamster colors. What you are talking about sounds like incomplete dominance, which is fairly common in color genetics.
I sincerely hope that you don't think all traits are inherited as incomplete dominance. Human eye color is a good example of inherited color that doesn't always fit incomplete dominance. For example, let's say a child's father is homozygous for brown eyes (represented as BB), and their mother is heterozygous for brown eyes and carries a blue eye allele (represented as Bb). That kid has brown eyes, regardless as to whether or not they inherited that blue eye allele from their mom, because the brown eye gene is dominant. That is, in the presence of both alleles, the brown eye allele will be expressed and the blue eye one won't. Their mom has brown eyes, not an intermediate between brown and blue.
Just for you, I actually looked up recently registered dog breeds. One of the most recent ones is the Alaskan Klee Ki, which resembles a miniature husky. This was the result of a breeding project between 1970 and 1988, a mere 18 years to produce a new dog breed, which was recognized by the UKC since 1997. So, feel free to count that as "extra time", that's still a new dog breed within 27 years. And I am fairly sure you've been alive from start to finish for that.
This is why I take such issue with you bringing up dogs so much. This is why I cannot stand you claiming that we don't produce new dog breeds ever. It can be done easily in a human lifetime. Plus, the Triops that will be my test subjects breed a lot faster than dogs do. 18 years is less than 30 generations of responsible dog breeding. The Triops will experience more than 30 generations within 2 years.
Where did the eukaryotic cells come from? what did they diverge from?
Eukaryotic cells have a strange history, given that at least 2 of the organelles that are in those cells (mitochondria in all eukaryotic cells and chloroplasts that are in those that photosynthesize) were once independent organisms and to this day have their own DNA and independently reproduce themselves within cells. I'd say that eukaryotic cells are a sort of hybrid cell type of a large cell with linear DNA that engulfed (but could not digest) some prokaryotes, and as the cell reproduced those did as well, and they formed a symbiotic relationship over time. Given that eukaryotes do have linear DNA while prokaryotes have circular DNA, I think it is reasonable to question the extent of shared ancestry between the two groups.Where did the eukaryotic cells come from? what did they diverge from?
Why would I expect to find a rabbit in the pre-Cambrian? If you did, Creation would be falsified.It's called "learning" and "making progress".
There's nothing in there that poses a problem for evolution. It's not like they found a rabbit in pre-cambrian strata.
What is a common ancestor? If we have always been human and a spider has always been a spider then how can we have come from a common ancestor?
Were there millions of common ancestors or was there just one?
Is evolution saying one thing had all the genetic make up of all things?
If that is so then a spider was not always a spider and a human was not always a human.
We evolved all separately from one thing a common ancestor. Hence we evolved from something that we were not from the start.
And there is no way to test or reproduce that.
And that really cool animation you gave is an assumption because there is no evidence that actually occurred.
We don't have a fossil record of spiders being anything but spiders.
Once again similarities are not evidence of evolution unless you assume they are.
Similarities are evidence if common design.
Evidence of evolution would be actually having something transforming into something else.
Like actual evidence of whatever it was slowly over millions of years transforming from something that didn't look like a spider into a spider.
All we have is fully formed fossils of millions of different things all existing at once.
All the testing we can do is only to show similarities. All the testing we can do is to show how a particular thing like a virus or a bird or moth can adapt and change to survive and yet still remain a bird or a moth or a virus.
I'd question their shared ancestry totally, not just to an extent.Eukaryotic cells have a strange history, given that at least 2 of the organelles that are in those cells (mitochondria in all eukaryotic cells and chloroplasts that are in those that photosynthesize) were once independent organisms and to this day have their own DNA and independently reproduce themselves within cells. I'd say that eukaryotic cells are a sort of hybrid cell type of a large cell with linear DNA that engulfed (but could not digest) some prokaryotes, and as the cell reproduced those did as well, and they formed a symbiotic relationship over time. Given that eukaryotes do have linear DNA while prokaryotes have circular DNA, I think it is reasonable to question the extent of shared ancestry between the two groups.
So in other words you don't have any actual evidence at all that humans and chimps share a common ancestor?Both. There were lots of common ancestors to both modern humans and modern chimpanzees, for example. These were entire species that led to other species, not one single individual that led to a new species.
The issue with suggesting that variations in skin color in any organism isn't the result of mutation is the fact that we STILL see new variations in skin color occur as the result of mutation. I showed you one before, and all you said was "but they still the same "race" though"... even though human races have always been arbitrary.Dont play coy. They insinuated skin color was the result of mutation. Whether its full dominance or partial dominance is irrelevant to the point being made.
Sigh, the problem with this claim is that evolution isn't just a matter of new mutations. It's also a matter of genetic drift. Even in a hypothetical population in which mutation does not occur, as long as that population had variation in the genes to begin with, there will be trends on the frequencies of various genes within that population, and future populations will reflect those genes best suited to living in the environment that population lives in. So, if I start out with 30 green hamsters, 30 red hamsters, and 30 blue hamsters, and the green hamsters have the biggest advantage because they blend in with the grass, the trend over time will be that green hamsters will become more and more common, while blue and red hamsters become less and less common. That type of population trend is evolution as well; it's the impact natural selection has on the variation within a population.No new dog breeds ever? Where in the world did you ever get that idea? I simply point out that there was no evolution from the Husky and Mastiff to the Chinook.
Not sure if interbreeding is the word you want to use, as it heavily implies that you think new dog breeds are only produces by crossing different breeds together... which is demonstrably not the case.It is all simply interbreeding, and if they applied that to the fossil record instead of using the PR of mutations, when mutations cant even get past the breed barrier....... it was interbreeding which led to that new breed 27 years later, not mutations, not evolution.
Kind has no solid definition, so I'd rather you no use that term. Say genus or whatever you think marks the line mutation doesn't cross.And its still the same Kind. It may be a different breed in that Kind. Id use the word subspecies as would be proper, but they are afraid to classify them correctly as it would show the lie to evolution, like they refuse to classify humans correctly.
Oh, so you do think new dog breeds are only produced via crossing already existing breeds. Guess you've never taken a good look at a family tree of dog breeds? The Irish sitter, for example, descended from the English sitter... without crossing it with other dog breeds. There are a lot of dog breeds that weren't the result of crosses between already existing breeds.Please get what I said correct. I said mutation cant even get past the breed barrier, not that interbreeding can not create new breeds.
2. Just a theory?
Climate-change deniers and creationists have deployed the word "theory" to cast doubt on climate change and evolution.
"It's as though it weren't true because it's just a theory," Allain said.
That's despite the fact that an overwhelming amount of evidence supports both human-caused climate change and Darwin's theory of evolution.
Part of the problem is that the word "theory" means something very different in lay language than it does in science: A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing. But to the average Jane or Joe, a theory is just an idea that lives in someone's head, rather than an explanation rooted in experiment and testing.
In case this hasn't already been posted on one of the 124 pages of this thread:
Why would we entirely know that? There aren't any fossils of "proto-eukaryotic" cells that are distinguishable as such. When single celled organisms fossilize, they are just a shape in the rock. We can't tell what was inside.So in essence no one really knows where they came from?????
There are legitimate reasons to view prokaryotes and eukaryotes as sharing ancestry, such as the shared metabolic pathway of glycolysis, the fact that both utilize DNA as their genetic material, and a bit more genetic similarity than can be reasonably waved away as coincidence. However, I don't think that this evidence is nearly as conclusive as, say, all vertebrates sharing ancestry. But, I'm actually a bit of a wingnut on this matter, fyi.Some people just believe a certain way, right?
I don't claim otherwise. Rather, I think that life may have more than one lineage, one with circular genetic material, and one with linear genetic material, and that the development of the glycolytic pathway in the eukaryote lineage was a result of the improper digestion of the bacteria that would later become chloroplasts and mitochondria. I'm not suggesting that my idea has more evidence supporting it than the idea of a universal common ancestor, only that it is plausible and that the evidence for UCA is not conclusive.Are you saying those eukaryotic cells just popped into existence? Surely they evolved from a simpler form of life?
I'm pretty sure you don't know what it means, since you think copies in different orders didn't copy what already existed, just in a new order.
You have interpreted the creation account in Genesis as being literal. This is in opposition to the views of other denominations, individuals and Biblical scholars. You are free to believe your interpretation of the passages. You are not free to deny that you do have a specific interpretation, though I imagine you will continue to do so.To dismiss what it says and say it isn't accurate in what it says and that it means something else than what it says IS an interpretation. I merely believe what it says plain and simple no interpretation required.
Why not? If I create a vase and a bowl from the same basic substances, just different proportions, even if created independently would share similarities yet be vastly different.Not if they were created independently from one another.
But if they share ancestry and evolved gradually over time, it couldn't be any other pattern then the one we observe.
I agree they are all the same Kind. Its them that cant seem to follow their deffinitions very well.Breeding for traits = artificial selection = application of the evolutionary process.
It's also how we breed both broccoli and brussel sprouts from the same wild gabbage plant.
Yet supposedly the descendants of some fish species became man and monkey. I thought fish always remained fish? I'm not sure your able to comprehend your inconsistencies, so used to being able to hide behind changing stories every three posts.Off course. Descendends of canines will always remain canines. Dogs don't produce cats. They produce more dogs (and sub-species thereof, eventually)
Agreed, which is why you see so few breeds (oh sorry, subspecies) in those species in the fossil record, man wasnt there to interfere. Nor was man there to see the breeding going on, and in his zeal to get his name in the books named everything slightly different a separate species. But apparently dogs still havent taught you anything. I have no doubt without mans interference there would only be two or three breeds (ooops, youd call them species then) of wild dog.Indeed, because in natural selection, only survivability and reproduction counts.
Not "fluffyness" or "cuteness" or "hardest bite" or "longest tail" or "best drugs sniffer".
Most of the breeds of dogs actually wouldn't survive in the wild at all. Some of them are even no longer capable of natural reproduction, because the evolutionary effects of the artificial selection simply changed their anatomy so much that they literally became physically incapable of reproducing I'm.
Again a nice example of why such species would not evolve in the wild. They require human assistance and care to survive.
But have no problem calling laboratory e coli natural selection or flies or peas. Hmmmm, imagine that.The only difference are the selection parameters, which aren't of the "natural" kind in breeding programs.
Dont play coy. They insinuated skin color was the result of mutation. Whether its full dominance or partial dominance is irrelevant to the point being made.
No new dog breeds ever? Where in the world did you ever get that idea? I simply point out that there was no evolution from the Husky and Mastiff to the Chinook. It is all simply interbreeding, and if they applied that to the fossil record instead of using the PR of mutations, when mutations cant even get past the breed barrier....... it was interbreeding which led to that new breed 27 years later, not mutations, not evolution. And its still the same Kind. It may be a different breed in that Kind. Id use the word subspecies as would be proper, but they are afraid to classify them correctly as it would show the lie to evolution, like they refuse to classify humans correctly.
Please get what I said correct. I said mutation cant even get past the breed barrier, not that interbreeding can not create new breeds. I fully accept interbreeding can do just that, and is the cause of the variation we also see in the fossil record. Not mutation.
Yes. The Bible is as clear as it can be on this subject. And it's not just me. You make it sound like I am some sort of lone wolf in this but I am not. Genesis has been trusted through the centuries as an accurate account of creation. And once again it is not an interpretation. It IS what the Bible says happened. To dismiss what it says and say it isn't accurate in what it says and that it means something else than what it says IS an interpretation. I merely believe what it says plain and simple no interpretation required.
There is no overwhelming evidence. It is all assumption. As evolution from a common IS squarely set against what God says it is a product of the human mind which is set against God. To disbelieve and dismiss what God says is a clear representation of the ungodly mind of humanity who serve the devil in their ungodly ways. Christians can be duped by worldly ungodly influences. And many are.
So let me get this straight.
You think scientists just walk around looking for skeletons, happen upon them from time to time, and if one skeleton looks similar enough to the next, they conclude "Wow, so I guess these animals evolved into these other animals!"
Seriously, I want you to answer this. Please tell me you do not have such a caveman-level understanding of how science works.
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?