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.
In light of complex life being on this planet for almost a billion years, yes, 20my isn't much.20 my isnt "little bit"
You know, when for example a Husky and Mastiff mate and produce a Chinook and because you only have bones name it a separate species.
Just you dont. You refuse to see that despite all the mutations every Husky puppy and Mastiff puppy is born with it remains the same. That the only time a new form appeared was when those two mated.
Haven't seen any yet that once the evolutionary PR is removed, contradicts it in the least, but actually supports it.
And my belief isnt fundamentalist
I disagree with many of the English translation of words in the Bible which leads to incorrect thoughts. I am not a fundamentalist like you that will agree with everything his high priests of evolution tell him to believe.
That was an invention of Bill Gates to put enough money in his pocket so he could retire. Everyone everywhere thought they had to buy a new computer in the year 2000. People were afraid airplanes would drop out of the sky at midnight on the first day of the year 2000. Gates and his buddies laughed all the way to the bank. It does not surprise me at all because I know how gullible people are. It is very easy to cash in and make money the way Gates did.
A quick look at this form shows how easy people are to tricked and deceived. It is the truth that people seem to want to reject.
Sorry, all life follows a nested hierarchy because male and female mate and produce offspring.
Not once has one evolved into something different.
You are the same species as your parents, who were the same species as theirs, on and on as far back as you care to go. And as far into the future as you care to go.
New species do not appear
Husky mates with Mastiff and produces the Chinook
You have simply confused the appearance of new forms in the fossil record from interbreeding as a new species.
We agree. Every Asian born remains Asian. Every African born remains African. The only time an actual change happens is when those two interbreed. All the mutations in the world wont change that fact.
No its not. Husky mates with Mastiff and produces the Chinook. Asian mates with African and produces the Afro-Asian. Thats how variation and diversity is introduced in the real world.
Agreed, there is no evolution. Asian remains Asian, African African, Husky Husky, despite all those claimed mutations.
And yet mutations never change an Asian or African into anything else. Only when those two mate is a new race formed.
Right, the pope, those who forbid priests to marry, despite the Bible telling them an overseer of the flock must be married and able to Shepard his own household before the flock. Those who worship graven images. Yah, I'll get right to believing that guy.
Asexual reproduction produces only clones.........
Isnt that what you support, survival of the fittest? What, you are not going to stand up for your own beliefs? Dont you support discarding the weak and old and infirm? Every animal in the animal kingdom does it. Are we not just evolved animals? Or do you want to bring the Bible in and discuss ethics and morality?
They seem to want to keep forgetting that over 100 new forms of canine arose from one wolf stock, simply by interbreeding, because it shows their belief in mutation as capable of crossing the breed barrier (let alone species barrier)
After all, Husky always remains Husky despite all those mutations.
And guess what, those wolves always remain wolves despite all their mutations too.....
But I am willing to bet if someone started breeding them for domesticity, like was done in Russia with those Foxes, why one would see changes........
I guess you really don’t understand biology.....
You must first breed for specific traits.
Natural selection is very slow as its selection pressures are determined by the environment - not by what "the breeder" has set his goal on. And the environment is very slow changing, mostly. Generation times of complex animals is also measured in decades. Put two and two together and you're talking thousands of years, at least, and a rather quick changing environment for the amount of changes you would like to be able to observe.I’m still waiting for you to answer why you choose to ignore the empirical observation of how new forms arise from interbreeding and promote mutation when every animal ever born was born with mutations. Yet Asian remains Asian and African African. The only time you even can get a change in subspecies, my bad race, is when those two mate. Your mutations can’t even cross the race border, let alone species border. And even if you have direct empirical data showing you how the race border is crossed, you ignore it. Not very scientific.
Well, in this case, there's some explanation required, because these two animals are quite distinctly different genetically and don't share anywhere near as much in their DNA as we do with Chimpanzees. How do you explain that, wouldn't a common designer have just reused genetic blueprint because of their similar niche roles?? A common designer doesn't explain this anywhere near as well as Evolution does... but I'm open to your point of view on this...Common design.
But I'm sure based on no evidence at all youll claim otherwise.
Echidna - Wikipedia
"The first divergence between oviparous (egg-laying) and viviparous (offspring develop internally) mammals is believed to have occurred during the Triassic period.[25] However, there is still some disagreement on this estimated time of divergence. Though most findings from genetics studies (especially those concerning nuclear genes) are in agreement with the paleontological findings, some results from other techniques and sources, like mitochondrial DNA, are in slight disagreement with findings from fossils"
So, Wait, you now acknowledge that we do evolve into different breeds after all, along with the Mastiff and Husky evolving from the Wolf lineage?Prehistoric fossils suggest modern dogs evolved from a single population of wolves
Through interbreedng of specific traits during domestication. But that would require you to read.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...tten-russian-experiment-in-fox-domestication/
Through interbreeding of specific traits. Your own evolutionists tell you that all dog breeds came from one wolf stock. Why do you find it difficult to believe the same of humans. Just like we bred those with Husky traits together to eventually get the Husky, so too those with Asian traits tended to mate until we got Asian. Is your biology that poor you cant understand such a simple thing? Oh that's right, from wolf to Husky didnt take millions of years or mutations, so you cant comprehend it. I understand.
Except all the mutations that made them Asians apart from their common ancestor with the African lineage, right?We agree. Every Asian born remains Asian. Every African born remains African. The only time an actual change happens is when those two interbreed. All the mutations in the world wont change that fact.
Agreed, there is no evolution. Asian remains Asian, African African, Husky Husky, despite all those claimed mutations.
Agreed. The evidence that every husky born with mutations remains Husky and every Mastiff born with mutations remains Mastiff and only when Husky and Mastiff mate will a new form appear will never go away.
And yet mutations never change an Asian or African into anything else. Only when those two mate is a new race formed.
How far back would we need to go to find the first non-Asian and first non-African that gave birth to the first African and Asian respectively?I agree in beneficial mutations, but it still doesnt change an Asian into anything other than an Asian or an African into anything other than an African. Only the interbreeding of those two races creates a nbew race.
No its not. Husky mates with Mastiff and produces the Chinook. Asian mates with African and produces the Afro-Asian. Thats how variation and diversity is introduced in the real world.
this is also Evolution in action too, you know that, right? Even you can't deny that we've gone from the Wolf lineage to Husky, Chinook and Mastiff lineages for a start, all very different to the Wolf lineage from whence they came, wouldn't you agree...?So am I, Husky mates with Mastiff and produces the new form of the Chinook, suddenly, fully formed. I'm just trying to get them to use reality in their game of connect the dots.
I'll take you up on this since nobody else has taken up my earlier challenge on this... Some quick questions to start:... Or do you want to bring the Bible in and discuss ethics and morality?
You are often hung up on outward differences, such as the extremely minor differences between human races, of which there is no trait unique to just one race. At least, no outward ones, which you constantly bring up.Beaks, was wondering when those outward physical differences that it was claimed I was hung up on would show up.
The ALX1 gene regulates the development of the skull and facial structures, and controls the expression of a group of genes. Regulatory genes like that can result in drastic differences in physiology, so it is entirely possible for the species barrier to be passed due to a mutation on one. This is part of why I say the species label is a bit arbitrary; since, in animals, it is highly based on interbreeding, it only takes 1 mutation to pose a huge barrier to reproduction between two populations. Not that this is the only genetic difference between dogs and wolves; they are different enough that some people have suggested that no modern wolf species is the one that dogs descended from, and that the one they are descended from had all wild populations go extinct.1.
Are you claiming that mutations to the ALX1 gene is sufficient to classify them as a separate species. It’s the reason biologists claim.
Which 3? Also, did you forget that I don't think all dog breeds should be considered the same species already?2.
They are interbreeding so much three are merging into one.
Lion and tiger offspring have terrible health problems, reduced fertility, and only are produced in irresponsible zoos that force the two species to be in close quarters with each other. Also, if only 1 gender pairing works, that is a mark of distinct species, and this applies to the fertility of offspring as well. Female mules have a small chance of being fertile, but most aren't and male mules are never fertile. Thus, horses and donkeys are different species. Also, I would be amazed if a chihuahua managed to mount a great dane, quite frankly. However, since I have never seen this cross, it is entirely possible that these two breeds actually can't interbreed, even with human intervention. You are free to try and give it a shot, if you want.Yet are you denying a female Great Dane might be able to be impregnated my a male chihuahuas? They said the same thing about lions and tigers. And oh my, they produced fertile offspring anyways.
-_- humans don't have subspecies, and our species is notoriously not picky about physical color. The type of race distinction you are thinking of only existed within the past 400 or so years.Just because two may not do so in nature, does not mean they can’t. The tendency for animals to mate within their subspecies is not just confined to man. This is why variation takes so long in the natural world.
I'm outright stating that 1 mutation can be enough, but I would need your source for your claim that this mutation alone is responsible for the species distinction in order to adequately address that specific example.Are you inferring that mutations to the AXL1 gene is sufficient to call them separate species?
Which. Species. Are. You. Talking. About.So you keep saying, yet three are breeding so intensely they are merging into one. Why just a few years ago they claimed none of them were mating and they were reproductively isolated which was why they were separate species. Then someone actually went and looked, and lo and behold, mating like rabbits.....
I need you to name them so that I can accurately do the research on my own! If I don't have names, I don't know what to type into the search engine, gosh, it shouldn't be hard for you to at least give me this much! I don't even know if you are referring to the finches or members of the same genus as dogs at this point, you've made it that unclear. If it is the finches, people have already told you that your source was very deviant from the vast majority of studies on the subject, and since I have read that source, it doesn't actually say that 3 species are merging together.They are the same species, just separate subspecies. Maybe you should look up the scientific definition of subspecies..... you wouldn’t be so confused if you followed the scientific definition that without which, there is no science.....
Don’t give me that when you don’t even believe your own rhetoric. There is nothing with those finches that allow you to classify them as separate species. Nothing but those arbitrary physical differences you claim I am the one that is fixated on. Yet despite those arbitrary physical differences in finches, dogs and humans, I’m not the one hung up on those differences. I recognize despite the physical differences they are each the same species in their respective class. It’s instead you that seems to be hung up on those physical differences. After all, it was mere physical differences which made them classify the Triceratops a separate species from the Torosaurus, even if one was merely a sub adult and the other the adult.For starters, you seem to be highly fixated on physical traits. In fact, what we refer to as different dog breeds or human 'races' are really just an artificial labels we assign to arbitrary collections of physical characteristics. It's just for the sake of categorization to make things easier to identify. But when you look at the reality in populations of species, things are far less distinct. This is especially apparent with people, because when you start to examine the so-called races, you tend to see more of a continuum of physical characteristics rather than hard divisions.
And those arbitrary labels, which don’t fit the way any other animal is labeled, still designate them all as the same species. I have no complaints at all if you wish to label them correctly as different subspecies instead of breeds. Or in the case of humans subspecies instead of races. But hey why classify things correctly when it comes to these two.It's similar with dog breeds, although those are more of an example of extreme artificial selection. People bred dogs for various reasons throughout history and at some point slapped an arbitrary label on a particular set of physical traits. This is where your Mastiffs and Huskies and other breeds came from.
And those finch genotypes are so mixed from interbreeding, the physical characteristics of beaks is your only designation. Are you claiming mutations to the ALX1 gene is sufficient a reason to designate them as separate species?With respect to the underyling genetics, all organisms carry unique genetic code which is termed its genotype. Expression of said genotype results in an organism's phenotype (its physical characteristics). The genotype consists of various individual genes. Varients of genes are termed alleles.
Agreed, just as Asians in the past selectively chose to breed with others with Asian characteristics until that genetic variability was reduced. Because the genome once had all racial characteristics within, and through selective breeding our genetic variability has been reduced. Which is why Asians remain Asian despite generations of mutations.........So really what is happening with something like selective breeding, is breeders are selecting for underyling alleles or combinations of alleles that yield specific physical traits. That's it. Admittedly, this can have an effect of reducing genetic variability, particularly where small populations and inbreeding are concerned.
And will never change an Asian into any other race, let alone a species. You have observed thousands of generations of mutations and yet the Asian remains Asian and no new race appears until they mate with another race. Your mutations lack any credible observational data.Where mutations come in is they act a source of genetic variability. Say a parent organism has a particular gene; we'll call it "gene A". If during the production of its gametes (i.e. sperm or eggs) a mutation occurs during cell replication, that gene may be altered. We'll call the new varient "gene A1". Assuming successful reproduction with that particular sperm or egg, the offspring will now carry "gene A1" instead of the original "gene A".
Which leads to mere differences in length of nose, hair color, etc.... but I thought those mere physical traits that you claim I was hung up on were unimportant. Yet despite this claim of yours, Asian remains Asian and no new race appears until they mate with another race. Yet you expect me to believe that despite mutations not even being able to cross the race border, they magically cross the species border?Where variability during interbreeding comes in is during sexual reproduction whereby organisms inherit ~50% of their genes from each parent. So if one parent has two copies of gene A (i.e. "AA"), and the other has two copies of a variant (i.e. "A1A1"), the resultant offspring will have one of each (A and A1). Thus resultant offspring of two more genetically distinct parents will carry variant traits from each parent.
Oh most have quite obvious affects, we call them birth defects.......Of course, mutations still occur regardless of the parent offspring and can and do introduce new variant genes in the process. Some may have obvious effects, others may not.
Yet Asian remain Asian, African remains African, Husky remains Husky and Mastiff remain Mastiff. You need to reread what you wrote about that reduction in genetic variation, then stop contradicting yourself with this PR rubbish that direct observation falsifies. Make up your mind, did we interbreed and reduce the genetic variation from the original which contained more genetic variation, or did we not?There is nothing which will result in the absolute "fixation" of a particular genetic makeup in a population. Mutations are unavoidable and will invariably introduce new variations. Your claims of Huskies always producing Huskies need not explicitly be true. Only with specific selective pressure and artificial limitations will that be the case. If the population is allowed to diversify and/or if selective pressures were applied for traits to move away from the traditional Husky phenotype, new phenotypes could emerge. In effect, you could do the same thing with Huskies or other dog breeds that people originally did with wolves.
Fixed as in reduction of genetic variation? Of course the Asian genes are fixed in that population, that’s why they remain Asian despite you trying to convince yourself they can become something other than Asian.What is "cross the race barrier" supposed to mean? If an organism inherits a mutation (i.e. a new allele), then any subsequent offspring of that organism will also have a chance of inheriting that same allele. Depending on the gene flow in that particular population, that allele may be weeded out or it may go on to become fixed in the population. The latter can happen from either positive selection pressure or from random genetic drift.
Oh no, I agree on how it works. I agree that through selective breeding between the same strain genetic variation is lost, never gained. That only when selectively breeding with a different genetic strain is more variability introduced. You know, Asian remains Asian and African remains African, and only when those two mate is a new variant observed? I agree wholeheartedly, it’s you that seems to keep vacillating back and forth in what you believe while ignoring the facts.The only making excuses up until now has been you. I've been trying to get to explain how things work and you continue to dodge, and for some reason are now excusing me of making excuses. I'm not even sure what "excuses" you are referring to, as all I have asked of you is to explain the mechanisms by which your claims of biology work.
The word is "knowledge". Man has wisdom, knowledge and understanding.
But that does not rule out the possibility that the common design was achieved by evolution. In order to rule out evolution, you have to show that common design was achieved by some other mechanism.
Why would a designer place 203,000 endogenous retroviruses in humans and chimpanzees in such a way as to mimic common descent?
Why would a designer place a broken GULO gene in all Haplorhine primates including humans?
Why would a designer place a broken gene pathway for hind limb development in whales and dolphins?
Why would a designer place broken VTG genes for egg yolk sac development in therian (marsupial and placental) mammals?
Evolution explains all of these things, "common design" does not.
And will never change an Asian into any other race...
Oh I did, perhaps you didn’t?So you still never clicked the link. Too bad, you’d have read this:
Apparently you didn’t even read your own evolutionists supporters post about inbreeding characteristics and reduction in genetic variability, or you would know how it came about.....So which of Noah's sons or daughters-in-law was Asian?
How did this Asian meet up with a middle eastern man/woman in these ancient times?
How did the Asian "allies" get repressed, then somehow later down the line, post-flood, when Asia was finally habitable again, did people from Ararat migrate there, mate, and have just their 'Asia' "allies" recombine to produce Asians from a middle eastern/Asian amalgam, since after all you claim with such confidence that 'And will never change an Asian into any other race..'
Evidence for this magical genetic assertion.
But the Asian population remains Asian and the African population remains African until they interbreed. We agree, it’s simply the means of that change in populations we disagree on. Since that change arose from interbreeding, in a mere nine months, not mutations over millions of years....Evolution takes place in populations not individuals. Nobody is running from anything. You just don't have the most basic understanding of it.
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?