- Jun 4, 2013
- 10,132
- 996
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Others
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.
False Scripturally since Angels are not made of flesh as the sons of God (prehistoric people) WERE. Gen 6:3 Jesus tells us that Angels don't marry. Mat 22:30 Also, the Angels who left their first estate (heaven) are held in chains under darkness until the Judgment. Jde 1:6
Chapter and verse on the giants from Gad? Amen?
Yet understanding dogs only give birth to dogs, you insist I accept some common ancestor of which none exist, gave birth to what became both human and chimpanzee. You know the reality but then propose the exact opposite.
All dogs came from the wolf, yes? Common descent, with only breeding.....
You missed the point.
"may reflect a unique recombination event in domestic dogs. However, we find no evidence of recombination "
Then posit despite no evidence that this is the reason.... Typical evolutionary PR hype....
I've never disagreed that what already exists can be written in a new format. That same DNA exists, it is nothing new, it was simply rewritten into a new format. Yet no evidence of this recombination event is observed......
Apparently you dont read too well.
The IGF1 small dog haplotype is derived from Middle Eastern grey wolves
"Our results show that the small dog haplotype is closely related to those in Middle Eastern wolves and is consistent with an ancient origin of the small dog haplotype there. Thus, in concordance with past archeological studies, our molecular analysis is consistent with the early evolution of small size in dogs from the Middle East."
How can the small dog haplotype be closely related to those in Middle Eastern wolves, if thayt halplotype does not exist in some form in those wolves?
As I have repeatedly said, what already exists may be written into a new format or enhanced by the quadrillionth mutation. Nothing here is inconsistent with that statement.
Apparently you dont understand what that haplotype being closely related to the same haplotype in middle eastern wolves means...... Taking it to mean it never existed in Middle Eastern wolves, because that is the concluson the PR people want you to come to. Yet if it never existed, there could be no close relationship to that halpotype in the Middle Eastern wolves. I understand common sense is beyound you, that all you can do is parrot what others tell ypou to believe, but learn to think for yourself. If it didnt alredy exist in some form in Middle Eastern wolves, that halpotype that is dominant in small dogs could not be closely related to the haplotype found in Middle Eastern wolves. In Middle Eastern wolves it may be recessive and not active, but exists already in a closely related form of the gene... Not that I expect an evolutionist to be able to distinguish the difference between mere dominance and recessiveness in genes.... Instead only able to parrot what they are told to say and unable to think for themselves....
Yet understanding dogs only give birth to dogs, you insist I accept some common ancestor of which none exist, gave birth to what became both human and chimpanzee. You know the reality but then propose the exact opposite.
All dogs came from the wolf, yes? Common descent, with only breeding.....
You missed the point.
"may reflect a unique recombination event in domestic dogs. However, we find no evidence of recombination "
Then posit despite no evidence that this is the reason.... Typical evolutionary PR hype....
I've never disagreed that what already exists can be written in a new format. That same DNA exists, it is nothing new, it was simply rewritten into a new format. Yet no evidence of this recombination event is observed......
Apparently you dont read too well.
The IGF1 small dog haplotype is derived from Middle Eastern grey wolves
"Our results show that the small dog haplotype is closely related to those in Middle Eastern wolves and is consistent with an ancient origin of the small dog haplotype there. Thus, in concordance with past archeological studies, our molecular analysis is consistent with the early evolution of small size in dogs from the Middle East."
How can the small dog haplotype be closely related to those in Middle Eastern wolves, if thayt halplotype does not exist in some form in those wolves?
As I have repeatedly said, what already exists may be written into a new format or enhanced by the quadrillionth mutation. Nothing here is inconsistent with that statement.
Apparently you dont understand what that haplotype being closely related to the same haplotype in middle eastern wolves means...... Taking it to mean it never existed in Middle Eastern wolves, because that is the concluson the PR people want you to come to. Yet if it never existed, there could be no close relationship to that halpotype in the Middle Eastern wolves. I understand common sense is beyound you, that all you can do is parrot what others tell ypou to believe, but learn to think for yourself. If it didnt alredy exist in some form in Middle Eastern wolves, that halpotype that is dominant in small dogs could not be closely related to the haplotype found in Middle Eastern wolves. In Middle Eastern wolves it may be recessive and not active, but exists already in a closely related form of the gene... Not that I expect an evolutionist to be able to distinguish the difference between mere dominance and recessiveness in genes.... Instead only able to parrot what they are told to say and unable to think for themselves....
Oh, species being defined as "organisms that can interbreed to produce fertile offspring" is just a simplified definition of the term species given to middle and high school level students, because it works in a basic sense. In an ideal world, that would be a sufficient, useful definition, but alas, organisms don't neatly fit into the little boxes we make for them.Whatever excuse you need. Why dont you read what happened with an actual experiment of domestication of wild canines? Or would and actual study of the process invalidate your beliefs?
Trut Fox Study | Domestication | Dogs
You will find that only the mutation to the gene that affected hair color was involved. But I understand they need to bring evolution into the dog lineage somehow so will say anything. But then I havent been shown I can trust people to tell the truth about evolution when they refuse to admit the truth about finches......... You havent yet explained to me why finches that interbreed are separate species, while spiders are the same species because they interbreed? Without justification it just shows youll say anything to support their lies....
Lets use the scientific definition.
An allele (/əˈliːl/) is a variant form of a given gene.
So what already exists is simply written into a different format.
Or can we say dominance and resessive?
Thats like evolutionists claiming E coli processing citrus is new,
[/quote]when all that happened was that gene became dominant, as E coli could always process citrus, even if not to the extent of being able to do so solely. Being the gene turned dominant - that already existed - it could then process citrus more efficiently.
The number is currently unknown at each loci. Since the number is unknown, it is unknown if one becomes dominant that already existed.
They just found two, even if it is the most reasearched next to blood types because of diseases.
Identification of two new alleles, IGHV3-23*04 and IGHJ6*04, and the complete sequence of the IGHV3-h pseudogene in the human immunoglobulin locus and their prevalences in Danish Caucasians
All are subspecies (races) of the original African humans.
But that doesn't jive with your version of the bible tale, I'm sure. uh oh!
"Can cheetahs interbreed with ocelots?"
No, because some understand the truth, that some obfuscate so they can name anything a species is their problem.By your personally preferred definition. There is disagreement about it among biologists. You are picking one side because you think it props up your bible tales, not for any real biological reason.
Read Leviticus which you quoted. It talks of multiple birds and yes bats, then says to each its own Kind. Such is why all finches produce only finches, bats produce only bats, owls only owls... Surely you can understand this much without your high priests telling you what to parrot? Do I have a problem if you want to classify an Ocelot as its own Kind? Not at all, except if it can mate with another then they are of the same Kind. But absence of known mating is another story."Speaking of birds, is "kind" at the level of the Finch? Or are ALL birds of one Kind?
Can parrots breed with emus?
If not, why not?"
So, are ALL BIRDS one 'Kind'? Or is it just Finches that are all one 'Kind'?
The Bible already told you, to each its own Kind. If they can interbreed they are the same Kind, if they cant then they are not.Can parrots and Emus interbreed - are they one species? Or not?
Without doing any research, just parrot, just like you only parrot what your online evolutionists tell you.I merely report what Online Bible sites tell me:
Thats why you still believe in evolution, you dont research.... just parrot.Sorry, I forgot - all creationists on the internet, in addition to being experts in all areas of science, are also bible scholars.
You are forgiven your trespass against me. Cant help with your sins.Please forgive my oversight.
because you stopped after you thought you had won and missed the next verse which mentioned winged insects.....But I have a question - if the bible writers meant 'flying creature' - why no mention of flying squirrels? Phalangers? Sugar gliders? Flying insects?
What about this creationist with a doctorate:
I hope this doesn't turn into a rant, but it might. You have been warned.
Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.
I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)
That Asian mates with Asian and produces only Asian.....What do you know that he doesn't?
As far as I am aware, the Asian and African contain different formats of genomes do they not? So what is your problem?Here you go:
"There was no plan to have so many similar Kinds. There is only one Kind of canidae. The reason they contain such variability built into the genome is surviveability. What disease may decimate one subspecies may not affect them all. What genetic degradation leading to a dead end that affects one may not affect them all....
From the genome, where that variation already existed. Variation is nothing but what already existed copied into a different format."
but
"African mates with African and produces only African. Only when Asian and African mate is a new race seen in the species."
So.... How did we get all this variation from some mythological "created Kind"?
Oh, species being defined as "organisms that can interbreed to produce fertile offspring" is just a simplified definition of the term species given to middle and high school level students, because it works in a basic sense. In an ideal world, that would be a sufficient, useful definition, but alas, organisms don't neatly fit into the little boxes we make for them.
Thanks to evolution being a very gradual process, it is not uncommon for species A and species B to be able to breed, and species B and species C to be able to breed, but species A and species C cannot. Obviously, they can't all be labeled the same species, since not all of them can breed with each other. So we label all 3 as different species because that's the best we can do, really.
What must also be taken into consideration is whether or not the hybrid offspring have reduced survival and reproduction chance. In birds, it is not uncommon for the hybrid offspring to be perceived by the species of the parents as unattractive and undesirable for mating, making them as much genetic dead ends as an infertile hybrid would be.
"A gene (from ancient Greek: γόνος, gonos, offspring, procreation) is a locus (or region) of DNA"What 'format' are you referring to?
Let's look at what YOU wrote:
"No, an allie is simply a very small portion of what DNA is."
Yet here you are now, after finally copy-pasting an actual definition, pretending to have known all along.
Typical.
Do you understand dominance and recessive? I dont think you do.I can say it - and even spell it correctly - and I also know that alleles are more than a dominant one and a recessive one. And so should you, since your own linked and quoted Wiki article lays it out.
You have no god to offer so its alleged word is worth nothing. Sorry.
Then perhaps you could explain since you understand all the complexities, why spiders are the same species because they interbreed, but finches are not? Those spiders were classified as a separate species until they were found to be interbreeding, then it was corrected.Oh, species being defined as "organisms that can interbreed to produce fertile offspring" is just a simplified definition of the term species given to middle and high school level students, because it works in a basic sense. In an ideal world, that would be a sufficient, useful definition, but alas, organisms don't neatly fit into the little boxes we make for them.
Thanks to evolution being a very gradual process, it is not uncommon for species A and species B to be able to breed, and species B and species C to be able to breed, but species A and species C cannot. Obviously, they can't all be labeled the same species, since not all of them can breed with each other. So we label all 3 as different species because that's the best we can do, really.
What must also be taken into consideration is whether or not the hybrid offspring have reduced survival and reproduction chance. In birds, it is not uncommon for the hybrid offspring to be perceived by the species of the parents as unattractive and undesirable for mating, making them as much genetic dead ends as an infertile hybrid would be.
Thats obfuscation to avoid the truth of mistaken classifications. Telling oneself s excuses to avoid confronting the truth.That's a great explanation Sarah.
Of course not, Africans came from one of Noah's Sons.
More question begging.What race were Adam and Eve? No one knows, I expect they no longer exist in any form we would recognize as the races today.
so clever, so astute."Can cheetahs interbreed with ocelots?"
No one has tried, try it and find out.
No, because some understand the truth, that some obfuscate so they can name anything a species is their problem.
Defining a species
"For example, these happy face spiders look different, but since they can interbreed, they are considered the same species: Theridion grallator."
Are you saying these spiders are incorrectly classified?????
Read Leviticus which you quoted.
It talks of multiple birds and yes bats, then says to each its own Kind. Such is why all finches produce only finches, bats produce only bats, owls only owls... Surely you can understand this much without your high priests telling you what to parrot?
Do I have a problem if you want to classify an Ocelot as its own Kind? Not at all, except if it can mate with another then they are of the same Kind. But absence of known mating is another story.
Evidence please.After all, for 200+ years they believed those finches didnt interbreed.....
The Bible already told you, to each its own Kind. If they can interbreed they are the same Kind, if they cant then they are not.
Without doing any research, just parrot, just like you only parrot what your online evolutionists tell you.
Thats why you still believe in evolution, you dont research.... just parrot.
You are forgiven your trespass against me. Cant help with your sins.
because you stopped after you thought you had won and missed the next verse which mentioned winged insects.....
As for squirils, why would they be included in flying creatures since they dont actually fly? Sure we call them flying squirrels, but in reality they dont fly at all.
Any more irrelevant strawmen?
Why yes I have. Ive given you examples already of a subspecies, or subkind. But you dont follow your own deffinitions.
"A common way to decide is that organisms belonging to different subspecies of the same species are capable of interbreeding ...."
But with your problem in defining species, I can see where you would be even more confused about subspecies.
That Asian mates with Asian and produces only Asian.....
Do we need to go over the empirical evidence all over again?
As far as I am aware, the Asian and African contain different formats of genomes do they not? So what is your problem?
All dogs came from one wolf gene.
Now someone tried the creation of new genes routine, but then I had to show them where this same gene was closely related to an existing gene in wolves, even when they claimed it didnt exist in wolves. But dominance and recessive is probably beyound your comprehension as well, since you cant understand how when an Asian mates with an African we might get a new race......
Thats obfuscation to avoid the truth of mistaken classifications. Telling oneself s excuses to avoid confronting the truth.
Ill ask you the same thing. What is the scientific reason, in your own words, for accepting finches that interbreed before their eyes a separate species?
Until you can show him to me, you have no god, only empty claims. Anybody can write anything and anyone can interpret it however they want. Just cut to the chase and provide your god.Sure I do and you cannot explain HOW any man could have possibly authored Genesis chapter one. In fact, you haven't been able to tell us HOW anyone at the time, knew and correctly wrote that "every living creature that moveth" was brought forth from WATER as Gen 1:21 clearly states. It took scientists until last year to confirm what God told us more than 3k years ago. www.smithsonianmag.com/.../behold-luca-last-universal-common-ancestor-life-earth-...
Godless men CHANGED the fact that all life came from water, into a godless scientific term and labeled it "natural". This has confused many naive worshipers of changeable Science. Sorry, but you were probably brain washed as a child. Amen?
"A gene (from ancient Greek: γόνος, gonos, offspring, procreation) is a locus (or region) of DNA"
I'd call that a very small portion of the DNA, since an allele is a given variant of a gene, not the entire DNA strand. Sad, sad, sad that that was your best attempt.....
A mutation resulting in a DNA sequence that is a new allele is by definition a new DNA sequence.
Or to use your own words, "a new order of what already exists" is a new DNA sequence.
No, an allie is simply a very small portion of what DNA is.
Yes, i do.Do you understand dominance and recessive? I dont think you do.
Hey, if you can't accept the same definition everyone else does that's up to you mate. Who cares?
Maybe you could call 'em subspecies if you care to create a new taxonomic nomenclature for them... Geospiza Justatruthseeker Fortis, Geospiza Justatruthseeker Parvula etc.
I can't really see it catching on to be honest......
Good day to you and I wish you luck in overturning the taxonomic system.
Hey, if you can't accept the same definition everyone else does that's up to you mate. Who cares?
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?