proving evolution as just a "theory"

[pitabread]

If the wolves we see today are less genetically diverse because of inbreeding, then the original two ancestral wolves that led to them logically were more genetically diverse.

And pray tell, how exactly would two individual wolves have more genetic diversity than a population of hundreds of wolves we see today?

Are you a subscriber to the "magic genome" school of creationist thought?

You seem confused

My confusion mainly stems from your clearly inconsistent approach to how you think lifeforms diversify. Though I suspect this is primarily a result of a gap in your understanding how genetics and evolution works.

That said, genetics is not that simple a topic. Rarely do I meet a creationist with a good grasp on the subject.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That doesn't work for everybody because for some, it isn't Christianity unless you believe the Bible, even when it disagrees with science.

How does it disagree with science? Do you mean it simply disagrees with the evolutionary PR that’s spouted while ignoring how we actually observe new forms come into existence, that they then simply ignore and refuse to apply to the fossil record?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And pray tell, how exactly would two individual wolves have more genetic diversity than a population of hundreds of wolves we see today?

There you go again. Refusing to accept your own beliefs. If inbreeding causes a reduction in genetic diversity, then before inbreeding began and set those genetic traits, it was more diverse. Those wolves have been inbreeding for thousands of years. Grey wolves mate with grey wolves. Just as black bears mate with black bears. Every animal does this except where ranges overlap.

Are you a subscriber to the "magic genome" school of creationist thought?

Not unless like you I ignore that to become less diverse through inbreeding, the genome must have been more diverse. I guess if you want to call science magic, that’s your prerogative.

My confusion mainly stems from your clearly inconsistent approach to how you think lifeforms diversify. Though I suspect this is primarily a result of a gap in your understanding how genetics and evolution works.

I understand exactly how it diversified, Asian mates with African and produces an Afro-Asian

It’s your flawed belief that the Asian or African evolves into the Afro-Asian for creatures you never observed in real life on the past.

That said, genetics is not that simple a topic. Rarely do I meet a creationist with a good grasp on the subject.

Rarely do I meet an evolutionist that says what he believes and then follows it. Apparently I’m still waiting to meet one.

 

[Jimmy D]

here you go again. Refusing to accept your own beliefs. If inbreeding causes a reduction in genetic diversity, then before inbreeding began and set those genetic traits, it was more diverse. Those wolves have been inbreeding for thousands of years. Grey wolves mate with grey wolves. Just as black bears mate with black bears. Every animal does this except where ranges overlap.

Do you know what inbreeding means? Because it seems like you don't.

 

[pitabread]

Not unless like you I ignore that to become less diverse through inbreeding, the genome must have been more diverse.

So again, exactly how were those two wolf genomes more 'diverse' than the resultant population.

Please explain, and don't forget to show your work.

I understand exactly how it diversified, Asian mates with African and produces an Afro-Asian

And again, how did all that diversity arise if originating from only two individuals?

You keep repeating yourself, but you never actually answer the question.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you know what inbreeding means? Because it seems like you don't.

I predict a spate of more hand waving.

 

[tas8831]

we are talking about 5-10% of all scientists. means many scientists, maybe even more then a million who dont believe in a evolution. but if you say so...

"scientists."

Like those that signed the Discovery Institute's Dissent from Darwin list?

That 'scientist' from Moscow University that thinks water has memory?

The nutritionist?

The lawyer?

The many engineers and computer scientists?

'Scientists' like those?

 

[tas8831]

And your science degree and experience is what again?

Careful - that new creationist expert on all science will accuse you of using an ad Hominem!!!!

 

[tas8831]

But mice don’t evolve. They stay the same until mated with another breed of mice. Every animal alive does.

I have concluded that you don't even really understand what a hybrid is.

You see, to get a hybrid, you have to have two different 'kinds' to start with:

A+B= A/B (hybrid)

See?

You need A and you need B to start with.

Where did A and B come from?

You would have us believe that A is also a hybrid of 2 not-As - lets call them not-A and not-A'

So where did the not-A come from? Where did not-a' come from?



You failed, utterly, to take your own argument seriously and consider its implications, for if you had, you would see that you really need to start out with a large pool of already established interbreedable 'kinds' in the first place.

To re-visit your hackneyed and boring Asian produces Asian, but if bred with an African, you get an Afro-Asian (new 'race').

i have asked you a dozen times where the Asian and African came from in the first place.

You either do not answer at all, or claim 'from Noah', or via hybridization.


if from Noah, you still have not answered the question, because that means that Noah and his wife would have had to magically give birth to a large group of not-middle easterners.




Now I am trying to decide if this is because you are just trolling to annoy people, or you really just cannot think these things through.

 

[tas8831]

Because you never read a single link about them. The DNA showed they had each and every one been interbreeding since arriving on the islands.

That is incorrect. I explained that to you when you presented (finally) a reference to the article you keep referring to.

Don't remember?

 

[tas8831]

Except no mutations produced the Chinook. Just the mixing of two different genetic strains from two subspecies.

Except that you keep refusing to address the obvious questions -

Where did the "genetic strains" come from?

Is it just 'genetic strains' all the way down to you?


If so, you keep increasing old man Noah's workload to the point of absurdity.

350,000+ species of beetle - did they are arise via hybridization of 700,000+ original kinds?

 

[PsychoSarah]

its no so simple sarah.

It is that simple; which one of us is a biology major, xianghua, you or me? Where is your actual evidence that any of the things I have told you would disprove evolution actually wouldn't? Because all I am getting from you is empty claims about how you THINK people would just wave such evidence away. Show an example, when have people waved away cats evolving into dogs or Precambrian rabbit fossils?

for instance: if we will see a cat evolving into a dog we can always say that there is an unknown mechanism that make the cat evolving into a dog.

You are simply flat out wrong. Modern species evolving into another modern species that already exists would completely defy the theory of evolution. By the process of evolution, such an event, even with the proper selective pressures in place, would be impossible, due to the fact that mutations are random and the shear number of them that would have to happen for a cat population to transition into a dog population.

very similar to a caterpillar evolving into a butterfly.

Metamorphosis is not evolution dude, it's caterpillar puberty. Did you really not know that, or are you messing with me?

so such an example will not necessarily disprove evolution.

It absolutely would. Too bad for you, all of your hypothetical things don't actually exist and are thus irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Evolution hasn't been disproven by cats evolving into dogs because that has never happened. Ever.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

"practically all people have been brainwashed for decades" Do you have any way of supporting this conspiracy theory? Who is doing the brainwashing? Why? How has the secret of the conspiracy been kept so perfectly?

I don’t see the word conspiracy except in your post, nor the word secret.

 

[tas8831]

Then I shouldn’t have to point it out to you for the twentieth time.

“The study also revealed a surprisingly large amount of "gene flow" between the branches of the family.

This indicates that the species have continued to interbreed or hybridise, after diversifying when they first arrived on the islands.”

This includes all 15 plus two from the mainlands.

But ignoring the data is your only recourse.

This is the article:

Darwin finches' messy family tree

1. One should note that it is a NEWS story, not a scientific article, and thus CONTAINS NO DATA.

2. Even when you quote the article, you ONLY get out of the quote what you want -

"This indicates that the species have continued to interbreed or hybridise, after diversifying when they first arrived on the islands."

You seem to totally ignore that part - why?

They initially diversified - how?

According to your "theory", they are all just hybrids, but your very source of "data" indicates that they DIVERSIFIED first!

 

[tas8831]

You keep repeating yourself, but you never actually answer the question.

I know, right?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Except that you keep refusing to address the obvious questions -

Where did the "genetic strains" come from?

Is it just 'genetic strains' all the way down to you?


If so, you keep increasing old man Noah's workload to the point of absurdity.

350,000+ species of beetle - did they are arise via hybridization of 700,000+ original kinds?

I’ve told you all hundreds of times. It’s that inability to hear anything other than what your high priests of evolution tell you to believe.

So let’s say animal 1 has genetic strain A and B and animal 2 has C and D. Now it’s offspring can have A, B, C or D or a combination of A/B, A/C, A/D, B/A etc, etc.

Then let’s continue with genetic reality and offspring with traits A start to mate only with offspring with trait A. You know, like we observe with every animal alive. Black bear tend to mate only with black bear, Asians tend only to mate with other Asians. Only where ranges overlap do offspring become more diverse from added genomic traits once genetic variability has set in from inbreeding. You know, the Afro-Asian has more genetic diversity now than either the Asian or the African.

But for genetic diversity to be reduced from inbreeding, it must first be more diverse.

What evolutionists propose is in exact opposition to the observed reality. Asians remain Asian, Africans remain African, only when they mate is the genetic variability increased for their offspring.

And Asian and African are the result of thousands of years of inbreeding of certain traits. Just as animals tend to only mate with those with similar traits, so did humans in the past. What once started as a genetically rich and diverse genome, was reduced to specific traits by inbreeding. To the point where now it is only possible to add genetic diversity through mating of two different animals of those with those set traits.

Which is why Asian always remains Asian, African always remains African, and only their combined genomes creates new diversity.

You should know at least the basics since you claim to understand biology, but apparently evolutionists always forget that inbreeding reduces genetic variability. And every animal on this planet tends to only breed with others with the same traits. Let me repeat that, every single one of them.

I.e., black bears tend to mate with black bears (inbreeding), Cardinals tend to mate with Cardinals (inbreeding), red tailed deer tend to mate with red tailed deer (inbreeding), and the list continues for every single animal.

Can we say “inbreeding” everybody? Can we say loss of genetic variability which is implicit in inbreeding everybody? Can we say since inbreeding causes loss of genetic variability it is implicit it was once more diverse everybody?

Or is everybody going to keep ignoring the empirical evidence in front of their eyes and science itself?

 

[Jimmy D]

I’ve told you all hundreds of times. It’s that inability to hear anything other than what your high priests of evolution tell you to believe.

So let’s say animal 1 has genetic strain A and B and animal 2 has C and D. Now it’s offspring can have A, B, C or D or a combination of A/B, A/C, A/D, B/A etc, etc.

Then let’s continue with genetic reality and offspring with traits A start to mate only with offspring with trait A. You know, like we observe with every animal alive. Black bear tend to mate only with black bear, Asians tend only to mate with other Asians. Only where ranges overlap do offspring become more diverse from added genomic traits once genetic variability has set in from inbreeding. You know, the Afro-Asian has more genetic diversity now than either the Asian or the African.

But for genetic diversity to be reduced from inbreeding, it must first be more diverse.

What evolutionists propose is in exact opposition to the observed reality. Asians remain Asian, Africans remain African, only when they mate is the genetic variability increased for their offspring.

And Asian and African are the result of thousands of years of inbreeding of certain traits. Just as animals tend to only mate with those with similar traits, so did humans in the past. What once started as a genetically rich and diverse genome, was reduced to specific traits by inbreeding. To the point where now it is only possible to add genetic diversity through mating of two different animals of those with those set traits.

Which is why Asian always remains Asian, African always remains African, and only their combined genomes creates new diversity.

You should know at least the basics since you claim to understand biology, but apparently evolutionists always forget that inbreeding reduces genetic variability. And every animal on this planet tends to only breed with others with the same traits. Let me repeat that, every single one of them.

I.e., black bears tend to mate with black bears (inbreeding), Cardinals tend to mate with Cardinals (inbreeding), red tailed deer tend to mate with red tailed deer (inbreeding), and the list continues for every single animal.

Can we say “inbreeding” everybody? Can we say loss of genetic variability which is implicit in inbreeding everybody? Can we say since inbreeding causes loss of genetic variability it is implicit it was once more diverse everybody?

Or is everybody going to keep ignoring the empirical evidence in front of their eyes and science itself?

Lol

For someone who gets so upset about terminology and definitions you’re playing fast and loose with the term ‘inbreeding’!

 

[Jimmy D]

So let’s say animal 1 has genetic strain A and B and animal 2 has C and D. Now it’s offspring can have A, B, C or D or a combination of A/B, A/C, A/D, B/A etc, etc

Great! You know that we don’t need to rely on these vague generalities now that we can examine DNA in such great detail. Maybe you can test your hypothesis with some real world data?

How about small dogs? You like dogs right?

 

[xianghua]

You really don't understand how science works, do you?

if you say so kylie...

 

[xianghua]

"scientists."

Like those that signed the Discovery Institute's Dissent from Darwin list?

That 'scientist' from Moscow University that thinks water has memory?

The nutritionist?

The lawyer?

The many engineers and computer scientists?

'Scientists' like those?

no. i actually refer to biologists and life science scientists.