Quick question for evolutionists

[Ark Guy]

This is absolutely incorrect and should simply be ignoredby anyone reading it. The variety we see in birds, breeds of dogs, and any population or different species in breeding is the result of mutation. To suggest that no mutations were required to create all the different varieties of dogs we have today is simply a stupid thing to say. Darwin covered this with breeding pigeons. It certainly is mutation that gives us the variety to breed from. Ask anyone involved in selective breeding program.

Either prove that statement..or retract it.

see ya when you have the proof.

 

[wblastyn]

Either prove that statement..or retract it.

see ya when you have the proof.

Where does the variaton come from then?

 

[notto]

Either prove that statement..or retract it.

see ya when you have the proof.

Where do all of the different alleles come from for the expressed traits in the over 150 breeds of dogs if they didn't come about from mutation and selective breeding? To suggest that they all came from 2 individuals or a small population of wolves without mutation is just silly.

Hairless breeds would by the best proof that your statment that no mutation is needed to get the different breeds of dogs we see. Can you explain hairless breeds without using mutation as the solution?

http://www.el-minjas.com/Dogbreeding.htm

 

[Ark Guy]

Where does the variaton come from then?

Do you have a sister or a brother? Perhaps one has your dads eyes and the other has your mothers eyes?

Do you think that was a result of mutations or genetic variation of already established genes?

 

[Ark Guy]

Where do all of the different alleles come from for the expressed traits in the over 150 breeds of dogs if they didn't come about from mutation and selective breeding? To suggest that they all came from 2 individuals or a small population of wolves without mutation is just silly.

Hairless breeds would by the best proof that your statment that no mutation is needed to get the different breeds of dogs we see. Can you explain hairless breeds without using mutation as the solution?

http://www.el-minjas.com/Dogbreeding.htm

Just for the record, notto seems to be back peddling a little,
For example in an earlier post notto said, and I quote:
The variety we see in birds, breeds of dogs, and any population or different species in breeding is the result of mutation.

In the above quote he now has added selective breeding to his statement.

 

[notto]

Just for the record, notto seems to be back peddling a little,
For example in an earlier post notto said, and I quote:
The variety we see in birds, breeds of dogs, and any population or different species in breeding is the result of mutation.

In the above quote he now has added selective breeding to his statement.

Selective breeding, or natural selection, it doesn't matter. You stated that we could get the dog breeds we have without mutation. Since dog breeds have been created by selective breeding, what is the problem. I haven't back peddled at all. Mutations are what give breeders something to select for. If it didn't, we would just get wolf, wolf, wolf, wolf, wolf.

Where do the alleles for the over 150 pure breeds of dogs come from if not from mutation?

Can you explain the hairless dog breeds without using mutations as a solution?

Selective breeding is no different than natural selection except for the traits selected for.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Ark Guy - many show guppies have huge tails.

In the wild, no male guppies have huge tails. They are all small. Where did the large tail genes come from?

Wild:

Show:

Another example - where does the tailless gene in the Manx cat come from? Do you see tailless cats in the wild?

 

[Svt4Him]

Well, since we're asking questions:

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?

2. Where did matter come from?

3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?

7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)

10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

13. When, where, why, and how did: a) Single-celled plants become multicelled? (Where are the two- and threecelled intermediates?) b) Single-celled animals evolve? c) Fish change to amphibians? d) Amphibians change to reptiles? e) Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!) How did the intermediate forms live?

14. When, where, why, how, and from what did: a) Whales evolve? b) Sea horses evolve? c) Bats evolve? d) Eyes evolve? e) Ears evolve? f) Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?

15. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)? a) The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)? b) The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce? c) The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs? d) DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts? e) The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose? f) The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants? g) The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones? h) The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system? i) The immune system or the need for it?

 

[Vance]

With 1 through 8, my answer would be "God".

As for the rest, all of these well-worn arguments have been answered over and over again by those supporting evolution. Rather than have you regurgitate the question and have us regurgitate the known answers, why not cut to the chase and respond to the known answers. That way we move more quickly down the debate process. I am sure you KNOW the typical responses to your questions if you have done any objective reading at all on the subject (which I have assumed you have, rather than just reading Creationist literature). So why not just reply to those rather than expect us to provide them all over again?

 

[Ark Guy]

Ark Guy - many show guppies have huge tails.

In the wild, no male guppies have huge tails. They are all small. Where did the large tail genes come from?

Wild:

Show:

Another example - where does the tailless gene in the Manx cat come from? Do you see tailless cats in the wild?

Either prove they come from mutations rather than genetic variation...or retract the statement.

 

[Ark Guy]

Selective breeding, or natural selection, it doesn't matter. You stated that we could get the dog breeds we have without mutation. Since dog breeds have been created by selective breeding, what is the problem. I haven't back peddled at all. Mutations are what give breeders something to select for. If it didn't, we would just get wolf, wolf, wolf, wolf, wolf.

Where do the alleles for the over 150 pure breeds of dogs come from if not from mutation?

Can you explain the hairless dog breeds without using mutations as a solution?

Selective breeding is no different than natural selection except for the traits selected for.

Once again the evos have presented information with out backing up their statement.

Either prove that the dog breeds required mutations or retract your statement.

 

[seebs]

Either prove they come from mutations rather than genetic variation...or retract the statement.

When you're done shouting, could you explain exactly what the distinction you're drawing here is?

Anyway, the conventional answer is this: There are no tailless cats in other breeds, no matter how long you wait and watch. Only these particular cats have this trait. No other cats appear to have the corresponding genetic material.

If a particular genetic "variation" shows up unexpectedly in a line, when the predecessors didn't have it, that would be a "mutation".

 

[notto]

Once again the evos have presented information with out backing up their statement.

Either prove that the dog breeds required mutations or retract your statement.

Hairless dog breeds are known to have come about through mutation. Done.

Now, could you provide information to back up your statement that all variation we see could be done without mutation? YOU MADE THE ORIGINAL ASSERTION AND MADE A BASELESS CLAIM. BACK IT UP.

 

[notto]

Incorrect.
micro-evolution does not need mutations.

PLEASE PROVIDE EVIDENCE TO BACK UP THIS ASSERTION

If I use size 7 on my font, will that mean I win the argument?

 

[Svt4Him]

With 1 through 8, my answer would be "God".

As for the rest, all of these well-worn arguments have been answered over and over again by those supporting evolution. Rather than have you regurgitate the question and have us regurgitate the known answers, why not cut to the chase and respond to the known answers. That way we move more quickly down the debate process. I am sure you KNOW the typical responses to your questions if you have done any objective reading at all on the subject (which I have assumed you have, rather than just reading Creationist literature). So why not just reply to those rather than expect us to provide them all over again?

You know I was once given answers to these, and they were dismissed as being scientific. Not one has been answered. Let me just stick to # 8 then...With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

And you only win with a size 7 font if no one uses a size 8.

 

[notto]

You know I was once given answers to these, and they were dismissed as being scientific. Not one has been answered. Let me just stick to # 8 then...With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

And you only win with a size 7 font if no one uses a size 8.

Probably one of its 'kin'. There are several microorganisms that can currently reproduce both sexually and asexually. At first, 'sex' was simply a way for a community of organisms to swap DNA. This was done but did not produce offspring. Over time, as colonial organisms developed, individuals would take on roles as the 'dna swappers' and the 'reproducers'. Again, things we can find in microorganisms of today. From there, the function is set, all that has changed is the technique and the tools.

As for your larger list of questions. Do you assign everything that can't currently be explained by science to be an act of God? This has not been a real productive process in the past and has led to several things being reassigned to the natural.

 

[Ark Guy]

I do also want to mention a few other things that I have learned during my research that is very interesting. [size=+0]There has been much said about these dogs being what they call mutations, this surely had me puzzled as they claim that they have mutated from a coated breed of dog. There is no proof to this, only speculation. There is now proof to the facts that these were a hairless breed and that at sometime possibly over the last 200 years or so there have been coated dogs brought in and mixed in with the hairless. [/size]

http://www.ckcusa.com/c_breeds/hairless_article.htm


So, you were saying????????

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Either prove they come from mutations rather than genetic variation...or retract the statement.

If the genes for these features were pre-existing, they would be observed in the wild populations. They are not.

Simple fact - you can breed generations of guppies. Suddenly, a new feature will appear. It's not been observed in any of the ancestral generations. Suddenly it's there. The obvious explanation is a new mutation. Other species do it too - you don't see balloon mollies in the wild, but they are now readily available in shops.

But since I imagine you're going to want actual sequences, I must refer you instead to the nylon eating bacterium. This page http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm explains in detail how a mutation created a beneficial new feature.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I do also want to mention a few other things that I have learned during my research that is very interesting. [size=+0]There has been much said about these dogs being what they call mutations, this surely had me puzzled as they claim that they have mutated from a coated breed of dog. There is no proof to this, only speculation. There is now proof to the facts that these were a hairless breed and that at sometime possibly over the last 200 years or so there have been coated dogs brought in and mixed in with the hairless. [/size]

http://www.ckcusa.com/c_breeds/hairless_article.htm


So, you were saying????????

Not sure it makes any difference. You still need to establish where the original hairless dogs came from.

 

[notto]

I do also want to mention a few other things that I have learned during my research that is very interesting. [size=+0]There has been much said about these dogs being what they call mutations, this surely had me puzzled as they claim that they have mutated from a coated breed of dog. There is no proof to this, only speculation. There is now proof to the facts that these were a hairless breed and that at sometime possibly over the last 200 years or so there have been coated dogs brought in and mixed in with the hairless. [/size]

http://www.ckcusa.com/c_breeds/hairless_article.htm


So, you were saying????????

You might want to reread the article for comprehension. The person is discussing why the some of the hairless dogs in the breed now have bits of hair. This is the change being discussed. The origin of this particular dog breed is unknown, but it is known to have come about at a certain point of time and there is not a lot of examples of hairless dogs in the wild.

You might want to look up the American Hairless Terrier.

Do you accept that domestic dogs are the descendents of wolves?