question about HGT

[In situ]

It's your claim, not mine.

http://www.livescience.com/33347-mutants-average-human-60-genetic-mutations.html

The article says: "When parents pass their genes down to their children, an average of 60 errors are introduced to the genetic code"

So the answer was, it is claimed to be "errors" in genes. Fine. I just wanted to know what kind of "errors" it was. But why did you not say it instead of making nonsense claim such as it was my claim? I mean if you gonna lie, at least lie so it is not so obvious you are lying.

Although I guess we got to make that 60 "errors" now, not 50, my mistake.

Yea, whatever. I dunno what you try to prove with this. But you seams to be happy about have learned this so I shall not rain on your parade.

Asian mates with Asian and produces Asian.

You mean like Golden Retriever mates with Golden Retriever and produce Golden Retriever?

Have you ever once observed an Asian become other than an Asian?

No but I have seen catterpillers became butterflies. Is it something like that you believe can happen?

WHAT IS YOUR POINT ?

 

[In situ]

Sigh, Asian mates with Asian and produces Asian. Have you ever once observed an Asian become other than an Asian?

Asians came from the same place Husky and mastiff did - from an original pair of infraspecific taxa in which the genetic code was separated from the start. What you think over 100 dog breeds within the species from two wolves occurred by magic?




And yet your children will always remain the same infraspecific taxa you are. They will never mutate into anything else. Only if one of them mates with another infraspecific taxa within the species - will a new infraspecific taxa come into the record - suddenly - with none of your Fairie Dust transitional forms needed or any evolution involved. When an African and an Asian mate - their children are Afro-Asian - neither Asian nor African but a combination of both. Yet Asian will always remain Asian and African will always remain African. As Husky remains Husky and Mastiff remains Mastiff and T-Rex remained T-Rex.

Don't try to play off your incorrect classifications in the fossil record with Fairie Dust please.

Bla ,bla bla.....do you understand that your argument is self-defeating?

Creationist have come up with this argument; dogs only makes dogs. And if dogs only makes dogs then the theory of evolution must be false. The logic in this argument is flawless, except for one things:

It assume there exists a dog of kind A and a dog of kind B and that kind A can give birth to kind B and v.s. However we know A kinds only make more A kinds and B kinds only make more B kinds, therefore neither A or B are dogs. In fact according to the creationist dog-argument there cannot exists such things as dogs that can make more dogs.

But I am willing to grant creationist the possibility of a hypothetical transitional dog C that can make A-kinds and B-kinds and C-kinds. Even though A kind and B kind not are dogs but only some kind of dog-ish-kind dog kind, C kinds are dogs so C is a dog and that will be fine as evidence for me. But then I also want evidence that this transitional dog C exists before I accept it.

And no it wont help if you name C as a wolf. There is no evidence that a wolf ever made A kinds or B kinds. Wolfs only give birth to wolfs (C-kinds). Therefore wolfs are not a dog kind, but their own kind, the wolf-kind.

and so on and so on until you have billion and trillions of kinds, a new kind for every new individual that ever has and will been born, it never stops.....

The correct way to say it is; a dogs make dogs because dogs are wolfs. Only wolfs that are dogs can make wolfs that are dogs. That means that a dog is not only a wolf to the name but it is actually a wolf that is a dog - literally. A wolf that is a dog, is also a mammal - not only to the name but dogs ARE mammals! Humans ARE also mammals. And because both humans and dogs ARE mammals it follows that humans are related to dogs. But we are mammals that are primates that are apes that are human that only makes mammals that are primates that are apes that are humans. That is why we cant make dogs and that is why dogs only makes dogs.

We say 'dog' and 'humans' when we speak because it would take all day to say "only a mammal that is primate that is a monkey that is an ape that is a human can make a mammal that is primate that is a monkey that is an ape that is a human and that is why a mammal that is a canine that is wolf that is a dog cannot make a mammal that is primate that is a monkey that is an ape that is a human". So it is then easier to say "dogs cant make humans because dogs are not humans. Dog can only make the same kind - namely dogs". But then a creationist wont understand what it means and start to believe it must be evidence against evolution, while it is not.

These long names are known as the nested hierarchy of life and they can uniquely identify any "kind" of "kind" in a tree-like fashion. The point is, these nested hierarchy, or "trees", are evidence for evolution, and the only way to prove that a dog exist is to accept that the theory of evolution is true (because only then it make sense to talk about dogs that makes dogs). But that was what they tried to refute. Therefore it follows the dog argument cannot disprove the theory of evolution, because the dog argument is a proof in favor of the theory of evolution.


N.B.
You wrote: "infraspecific taxa"
I answer: lol - you are funny!

 

[In situ]

You have yet to show a common ancestor.

 

[In situ]

There is no new information added - EVER.

New information? Who cares? The "information" is encoded in the amino acids, not in the DNA.. learn some chemistry dude.

Real biologist says "structure" only creationist says "information" - and that is why it so easy to keep them apart.

 

[In situ]

 

[[serious]]

The whole kinds thing is a little silly, because evolution is fine with things only producing their own kind:

A eukaryote (has a nucleus) might develop a true multicellular colony organism, but it's still a eukaryote.
A multicellular organism might develop bilateral symmetry, but it's a multicellular eukaryote.
A bilaterally symmetrical multicellular eukaryote might develop a hollow nerve cord (vertebrate) but it's still a A bilaterally symmetrical multicellular eukaryote
a vertebrate bilaterally symmetrical multicellular eukaryote might develop a calcified internal skeleton, but it's still, well, you get the picture.
Go through that same thing with:
a jaw
4 limbs
lungs
amniotic eggs
hair
opposable thumbs
bipedal locomotion
etc.

Kind after kind describes evolution just fine. In a nested hierarchy, each thing is just variation within the parent groups.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Bla ,bla bla.....do you understand that your argument is self-defeating?

Creationist have come up with this argument; dogs only makes dogs. And if dogs only makes dogs then the theory of evolution must be false. The logic in this argument is flawless, except for one things:

It assume there exists a dog of kind A and a dog of kind B and that kind A can give birth to kind B and v.s. However we know A kinds only make more A kinds and B kinds only make more B kinds, therefore neither A or B are dogs. In fact according to the creationist dog-argument there cannot exists such things as dogs that can make more dogs.

Strawman argument of the highest order.

Except for the one small fact you are forgetting. That genome that was separated from the start in the animals that breed. Male and female created He them. This makes two (A and B) in case you are not fully up on your math (1+1=2). And since created genetically perfect - each would have all the genome combinations available to make all of the different breeds we see today from (1+1=2). Again - it is only in your Fairie Dust fantasies that fail to match reality in which it requires only one thing. And those that multiply by binary fission already contain both sets.

But I am willing to grant creationist the possibility of a hypothetical transitional dog C that can make A-kinds and B-kinds and C-kinds. Even though A kind and B kind not are dogs but only some kind of dog-ish-kind dog kind, C kinds are dogs so C is a dog and that will be fine as evidence for me. But then I also want evidence that this transitional dog C exists before I accept it.

So very kind of you to grant me Fairie Dust to start with.

C didn't exist - your strawman conclusions are invalid. A and B mated and C was born - you know - just like we observe in the real world. Husky or Asian (A) mates with Mastiff or African (B) and a Chinook or Afro-Asian (C) appears in the record. There is no need to even pretend that C is needed in the first place - until C mates with A or B and produces D.

And no it wont help if you name C as a wolf. There is no evidence that a wolf ever made A kinds or B kinds. Wolfs only give birth to wolfs (C-kinds). Therefore wolfs are not a dog kind, but their own kind, the wolf-kind.

If you say so.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2014/01/study-narrows-origin-dogs

"Their findings revealed the three wolves were more closely related to each other than to any of the dogs. Likewise, the two dog genomes and a third boxer genome resembled each other more closely than the wolves. This suggests that modern dogs and gray wolves represent sister branches on an evolutionary tree descending from an older, common ancestor."

Now lets translate it properly.

This suggests that modern dogs and gray wolves represent separate infraspecific taxa within the dog species - descending from older infraspecific taxa (two) ancestors. Just like we have observed in nature for the last 6,000 years of the historical record.

The correct way to say it is; a dogs make dogs because dogs are wolfs. Only wolfs that are dogs can make wolfs that are dogs. That means that a dog is not only a wolf to the name but it is actually a wolf that is a dog - literally. A wolf that is a dog, is also a mammal - not only to the name but dogs ARE mammals! Humans ARE also mammals. And because both humans and dogs ARE mammals it follows that humans are related to dogs. But we are mammals that are primates that are apes that are human that only makes mammals that are primates that are apes that are humans. That is why we cant make dogs and that is why dogs only makes dogs

No, the correct way to say it is wolves descended from one infraspecific taxa and dogs descended from another infraspecific taxa - but far enough back and they both descended from A and B. lets go over it again. A+B = C, A+C = D, B+C = E, E+A = F - and on and on and on until we end up with over 100 dog infraspecific taxa.

We say 'dog' and 'humans' when we speak because it would take all day to say "only a mammal that is primate that is a monkey that is an ape that is a human can make a mammal that is primate that is a monkey that is an ape that is a human and that is why a mammal that is a canine that is wolf that is a dog cannot make a mammal that is primate that is a monkey that is an ape that is a human". So it is then easier to say "dogs cant make humans because dogs are not humans. Dog can only make the same kind - namely dogs". But then a creationist wont understand what it means and start to believe it must be evidence against evolution, while it is not.

And monkeys don't make humans and humans dont make monkeys. Humans make humans, monkeys make monkeys and dogs make dogs. Stop confusing them together - they are separate species entirely. Stop the strawman of thinking one infraspecific taxa of one species can mate with an infraspecific taxa of another species and produce anything. Show me dogs creating cats or mating with them? Show me monkeys creating humans or mating with them????

These long names are known as the nested hierarchy of life and they can uniquely identify any "kind" of "kind" in a tree-like fashion. The point is, these nested hierarchy, or "trees", are evidence for evolution, and the only way to prove that a dog exist is to accept that the theory of evolution is true (because only then it make sense to talk about dogs that makes dogs). But that was what they tried to refute. Therefore it follows the dog argument cannot disprove the theory of evolution, because the dog argument is a proof in favor of the theory of evolution.

Dogs falsify your theory as does every animal in existence including man - you still refuse to accept observational evidence. Husky never mutates into anything - but always remains a Husky. T-Rex never mutated into anything but always remained a T-Rex - from the oldest to youngest fossil found. Why are you refusing to accept over 6000 years of empirical evidence and pretending it happened differently in the past where we can never observe it?????

Your claims can not even stand up to the fossil record. Triceratops, T-Rex, and any you care to name remained the same from the oldest fossil found to the youngest fossil found. This is fact. New variations appeared suddenly. This is a fact.

What is not a fact is the story you tell children. They evolved into nothing. They mated with another infraspecific taxa to create yet another, just as we observe in real life. Husky mates with Mastiff and produces a Chinook. Asian mates with African and produces an Afro-Asian. At no time does the Mastiff or Asian evolve into the Afro-Asian or Chinook or the African and the Husky evolve into the Afro-Asian or the Chinook.

At least make up a theory that fits the observational evidence, instead of having to ignore it.

 

[In situ]

Strawman argument of the highest order.

C didn't exist - your strawman conclusions are invalid.

HAHAHAHAHA! Oh please stop. Your are killing me with laughter...

C = common ancestor, does not exist? You are actually saying that dogs does not exists. So Bassets and Whippets must had been magically created, HAHAHAHAHA! You are so funny!

Next you gonna tell me you have no parents but was created by magic as well? Or....? HAHAHAHAHHA! You are way to funny dude!

 

[In situ]

At least make up a theory that fits the observational evidence, instead of having to ignore it.

You mean like:

 

[In situ]

Your claims can not even stand up to the fossil record.

I have not even started to talk about the fossil record dude. I been talking about dogs only if you did not notice. I can prove evolution must have happen with dogs only to a person of reason (which our are not since you believe dogs are created with magic), or I can prove it with a banana, a chimp and a man alone. I don't need the fossil record to prove it. Fossils are just a bonus that tells us the details....

But if you want to involve the fossil record. Sure, then the fossil record tells us that there once existed some fluffy therapsids known as cynodonts. Do you know anything about therapsids and cynodonts? If not, all you need to know about them is this:

Would you like to have a discussion with me about why cynodonts are fluffy but therapsidis are not?

 

[whois]

WHAT IS YOUR POINT ?

i believe his point is that macroevolution isn't a simple case of "gradual microevolution"

 

[Justatruthseeker]

HAHAHAHAHA! Oh please stop. Your are killing me with laughter...

View attachment 165049


C = common ancestor, does not exist? You are actually saying that dogs does not exists. So Bassets and Whippets must had been magically created, HAHAHAHAHA! You are so funny!

Next you gonna tell me you have no parents but was created by magic as well? Or....? HAHAHAHAHHA! You are way to funny dude!

And now you got to twist things to attempt to argue?


He was granting me C to make A and B, but I do not need C to make A or B. A and B already existed. Male and female created He them. I can get to C. A+B=C.

Now let's try it with your theory. A+A=A. Nope, doesn't work at all, can't get to B, let alone C. Except for what you have been informed of for 6000 years of empirical evidence. A (Asian/Husky/etc) + A (Asian/Husky/etc) = A (Asian/Husky/etc). A (Asian/Husky/etc) + B (African/Mastiff/etc) = C (Afro-Asian/Chinook/etc). B (African/Mastiff/etc) + B (African/Mastiff/etc) = B (African/Mastiff/etc). The logical conclusion thereof is C (Afro-Asian/Chinook/etc) + C (Afro-Asian/Chinook/etc) = C (Afro-Asian/Chinook/etc).

And what do you know, we do not even have to ignore 6,000 years of direct empirical observational data.

 

[Loudmouth]

i believe his point is that macroevolution isn't a simple case of "gradual microevolution"

We agree. Many times it is a case of punctuated microevolution coupled with cladogenesis. Your point?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I have not even started to talk about the fossil record dude. I been talking about dogs only if you did not notice. I can prove evolution must have happen with dogs only to a person of reason (which our are not since you believe dogs are created with magic), or I can prove it with a banana, a chimp and a man alone. I don't need the fossil record to prove it. Fossils are just a bonus that tells us the details....

But if you want to involve the fossil record. Sure, then the fossil record tells us that there once existed some fluffy therapsids known as cynodonts. Do you know anything about therapsids and cynodonts? If not, all you need to know about them is this:

View attachment 165052


Would you like to have a discussion with me about why cynodonts are fluffy but therapsidis are not?

You have never proved dogs evolved. Anymore than both the Husky and the Mastiff evolved into the Chinook. You got Fairie Dust. Fabricated Ad-hoc Inventions Repeatedly Invoked in Effort to Defend Untenable Scientific Theory. Explain to us all how every time an Asian or Husky mates with a African or Mastiff, a Afro-Asian or Chinook is produced by this supposedly random mutation into other things in Fairie Dust land?

I have told you over and over - all you can logically and empirically account for is small macro-evolution within each infraspecific taxa itself. You have never observed speciation at any time - not in the real world and not in the past. You have only ever observed separate infraspecific taxa mate with infraspecific taxa producing new infraspecific taxa - this is the important part - within the species or "Kind" if you prefer.

But since they do not even follow the accepted biological definition of species - of course you are confused. It is quite understandable when they preach one thing while their Holy Books preach another.

At least I remain consistent with my Holy Book, but then mine isn't proven wrong roughly once every 100 years.

 

[whois]

post deleted because, well i screwed up.

 

[Loudmouth]

post 194, loudmouth says: I have told you over and over - all you can logically and empirically account for is small macro-evolution within each infraspecific taxa itself. You have never observed speciation at any time - not in the real world and not in the past. You have only ever observed separate infraspecific taxa mate with infraspecific taxa producing new infraspecific taxa - this is the important part - within the species or "Kind" if you prefer.

Those aren't my words.

 

[whois]

Those aren't my words.

oh man, my sincerest apologies loudmouth.

 

[Loudmouth]

oh. man, my sincerest apologies loudmouth.

Not a problem. We all make mistakes from time to time.

 

[Hoghead1]

It is generally accepted by biologists that dogs did evolve from wolves. They just don't pull these ideas out of thin air. They can make a solid case. If you want to read about evolution observed in the lab, try: "Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Sciences," University of Michigan, 1998, where you will find a paper titled "Historical Contingency and the Evolution of a Key Innovation in an Experimental Population of Escherichiacoli. "
Granted, it has been a problem to define exactly what is meant by a "Species," a point Darwin stressed.Indeed, the changes within a species can be greater than the differences between species. There are, for example, larger differences between breeds of dogs than between the original dog and the wolf.
The whole point, however, is that brand-new organisms can arise from previous ones. If you think of evolution as denoting s significant change in the "essence" of something then everything does evolve. No thinker thinks twice. We are continually evolving, moment to moment.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It is generally accepted by biologists that dogs did evolve from wolves. They just don't pull these ideas out of thin air. They can make a solid case. If you want to read about evolution observed in the lab, try: "Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Sciences," University of Michigan, 1998, where you will find a paper titled "Historical Contingency and the Evolution of a Key Innovation in an Experimental Population of Escherichiacoli. "
Granted, it has been a problem to define exactly what is meant by a "Species," a point Darwin stressed.Indeed, the changes within a species can be greater than the differences between species. There are, for example, larger differences between breeds of dogs than between the original dog and the wolf.
The whole point, however, is that brand-new organisms can arise from previous ones. If you think of evolution as denoting s significant change in the "essence" of something then everything does evolve. No thinker thinks twice. We are continually evolving, moment to moment.

No it's not.

http://www.livescience.com/42649-dogs-closest-wolf-ancestors-extinct.html

No, a brand new organism can not arise from a previous one. It takes "two or more". Not one single dog that exists today was evolved from one branch of a species. It took two separate infraspecific taxa within that species to create another.


We will go back to the empirical evidence since you forgot about it already.

Husky mates with Mastiff and produces a Chinook. Asian mates with African and produces an Afro-Asian. So one wolf breed mated with another wolf breed which eventually led to modern dogs.

A+B=C.

At no time did A+A=C or even B.


Please stop ignoring how everyone here (including you) knows life propagates in favor of that Fairie Dust.

We call one thing coming directly from the same thing a clone - because we understand such things NEVER create anything new.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloning

"In biology, cloning is the process of producing similar populations of genetically identical individuals that occurs in nature when organisms such as bacteria, insects or plants reproduce asexually."

A+A = A

ALWAYS.


There is no difference between those bacteria that contain both sets of genetic markers than the Asian population in which one set of markers is in the female and the other in the male. And A+A still equals A.