Evolution thread.

Discussion in 'Science' started by Maccabee, Jan 18, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    62,113
    Likes Received:
    17,011
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, it does not. This has been explained to you several times now.

    Cheetahs and house cats came from some common progenitor species. The population divided and they evolved along different paths. Both Cheetahs and house cats had mutations that are unique to them, and after some period of time there were enough differences that members of the two different branches could not interbreed - speciation. From there, they continued to collect different mutations. Cheetahs were selected by their environment for diet, speed, size, weight, temperament, etc., etc. House cats went another route, and collected different mutations. Today, they aren't even the same genus, let alone the same species.

    The idea of a breeding program to bring the two branches back to one species is absolutely and totally ridiculous. The genetic changes that have occurred are numerous, and further breeding is just not going to cause Cheetahs to lose their Cheetah genetic changes and gain house cat genetic changes.

    The idea of a breeding program that would create some new species that came from Cheetahs but now LOOKS LIKE a house cat is at least possible, but that is NOT going to help house cats and cheetahs interbreed successfully - the definition of species.

    Phenotype is only a clue to genotype.
     
  2. AboveAlpha

    AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    30,284
    Likes Received:
    618
    Trophy Points:
    83
    In Russia they have a program where they are using Wild Sables which are like small white foxes and they are taking out the Sables that are aggressive and breeding the one's that are not to get a new type of Dog.

    Within only a few Generations the less aggressive Sables that are being bred begin to change color and are not vicious at all.

    This happens in a very short time and the wild traits are bred out only after a few generations.

    All Cats are genetically related but it was the smaller cats like Bobcats and Lynxes that the common house cat came from.

    Humans and Cats have been living together in a symbiotic relationship for thousands of years.

    AA
     
  3. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    62,113
    Likes Received:
    17,011
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, evolution happens as a very long period of acquisition and rejection of various mutations. Blue eyes is a recent evolutionary acquisition of humans. Digesting milk as an adult is a recent evolutionary acquisition of humans. Bacteria figuring out how to live through penicillin comes through a large number of mutations acquired by various strains of bacteria that have improved the life expectancy of those strains when exposed to penicillin. etc.

    Let's keep it to biology. What happens to a skateboard just gives us a rather ridiculous translation problem.
     
  4. contrails

    contrails Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2014
    Messages:
    4,454
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    38
    That is what you call "moving the goalposts". You didn't ask for an example of increasing genetic variation, you asked specifically about a "purely beneficial mutation". Losing the ability to produce lactase after weaning is normal for mammals, so how would a mutation that allows adults to continue digesting milk not be purely beneficial?

    Evolution does not say that you can get a pure breed lab from a litter of mutts. If wolves can gain enough genetic diversity to form all of the different breeds of dog that form the species Canis familiaris, what would have prevented the first canid living millions of years ago from forming foxes, coyotes, jackels, and wolves?

    The same genetic evidence that is used in courts to prove paternity is used by scientists to show common descent. Simply denying it will not make it go away.
     
  5. contrails

    contrails Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2014
    Messages:
    4,454
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    38
    No, I'm not. If they did, then they wouldn't need a mutation to have similar traits.
     
  6. Maccabee

    Maccabee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    8,902
    Likes Received:
    1,064
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ok then I agree. But it's not adding any information, its only prolonging existing information. In order for macro evolution to be true you'll need to show information that is added, such as the scale to feather.
    Wait, how? Mutts posses the DNA of their parents. With selective breeding you can recreate one of the breeds the mutt is made of because its children posses the genetic makeup of the parents. What you failed to show is that genetic diversity is unlimited.

    - - - Updated - - -

    So how did its lineage gained the genetic information to create legs?
     
  7. Maccabee

    Maccabee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    8,902
    Likes Received:
    1,064
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Proving that there is genetic limits between the two. It's like a box of Legos. You're limited to what you can create depending on how much Legos you have. You can create a RC car if the box didnt came with the components.
     
  8. Maccabee

    Maccabee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    8,902
    Likes Received:
    1,064
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Show us how do we know that blue eyes is a recent thing. Digesting milk is a prolongation of a gene that already exist. Bacteria in order to adapt to its environment loses DNA and are inferior to its non mutated counterparts when not in danger.
    I was assuming that you'll understand what I meant. Guess I can't assume anything. The skateboard anology was the evolutionary process in a nut shell.
     
  9. Maccabee

    Maccabee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    8,902
    Likes Received:
    1,064
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Maybe adapting the ability would still have drawbacks that a system that was design in the first place to take it for longer wouldn't. It'll be like using duct tape to fix a part rather than using something specifically designed to fix that part. Now can I ask for a mutation that adds new information?

    They're still in the candid family.
    Like what?
     
  10. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    62,113
    Likes Received:
    17,011
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The mutation for adult digestion of milk is completely separate. Suggesting it is "less than" is baseless. It is a mutation.

    Yes. Through dna analysis it is possible to see where information was added.

    NO. Mutations lose information and gain information. And, breeding selects some features from one side and some features from another. Suggesting it is all in there somewhere (from all ancestors) is obviously false. After all, there is no way to store all that information. Information storage takes space, and our eggs and sperm are of fixed size.

    You need to learn some basics of procreation genetics.

    Even bacteria have motility. Motility is a clear advantage that poses no problem to incremental steps of evolution.

    - - - Updated - - -

    That might be true if there weren't ever any mutations.

    But, there are mutations. So, every so often you get some new legos.
     
  11. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    62,113
    Likes Received:
    17,011
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, once again adult digestion of mile required a mutation. Even if you were right that it is a "prolongation" as you call it, it would not mean that a mutation wasn't required. A genetic change happened.

    I have no problem with your bacteria thing. I've already pointed out that it was important for Cheetahs to lose bone mass and brain capacity to maximize their competitive advantage in speed.

    Evolution does not have some predetermined objective for life. It does NOT work to make animals smarter or faster or larger or anything else - selection is for advantages that help with survival. That could mean MORE brain or LESS brain, MORE strength or LESS strength - tradeoffs that have to do with energy requirement, food choices, habitat, etc.
     
  12. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    62,113
    Likes Received:
    17,011
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're adding a selection mechanism that simply doesn't exist. The only judges of mutations come in the form of survival, etc.

    The human body has crazy stuff going on, because it apparently just didn't matter that much. We have an appendix for which we have NO need. Yet, every once in a while it will kill us.

    So, an appendix is even worse than duct tape!!
     
  13. contrails

    contrails Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2014
    Messages:
    4,454
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Adaptation is what individuals do despite their genetic predispositions. When a trait is passed down from generation to generation, it is called a mutation. So what drawbacks does lactose tolerance have?

    Would two copies of the same genes meet your definition of "new information"?

    Exactly. And when different dog breeds evolve enough that they become different species, they will still be dogs too. What you fail to grasp is that the same changes that make dogs and wolves different species made canids and felines different families, and made mammals and amphibians different classes. The only difference is how long ago those changes happened.

    Like ERVs.

    http://www.evolutionarymodel.com/ervs.htm
     
  14. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    62,113
    Likes Received:
    17,011
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are huge differences between cars, skateboards etc., and biology, as I'm sure you agree. So, we know there are limitations to the analogy.

    I don't mean to be critical - it's just that creating an analogy that actually results in better communication is really difficult.
     
  15. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    62,113
    Likes Received:
    17,011
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They have a combination of parts of the dna of each parent.

    Each human parent has about 3 billion base pairs comprising their dna. Much of that dna is the same, as each parent is a human and mutations aren't all that common. But, there is enough that is unique that your dna is a far better identification of you than a fingerprint could ever be. And, you have only half the dna from your father - the rest of that is NOT in you. It is lost. So, if you look for the part of you that is your paternal grandfather, even less of that is in you, as 3/4ths came from your other grandfather and your grandmothers.

    Here's some interesting numbers related to dna:
    https://publications.nigms.nih.gov/insidelifescience/genetics-numbers.html

    "The DNA of any two people on Earth is 99.6 percent identical. But 0.4 percent variation represents about 12 million base pairs, which can explain many of the differences between individuals, especially if the changes lie in key genes."
     
  16. contrails

    contrails Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2014
    Messages:
    4,454
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    38
    If you understood even the basics of biology, you would know that mutts posses only half of the DNA of each of their parents.
     
  17. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    13,238
    Likes Received:
    2,971
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Actually, the difference can be stated very simply.

    A cheetah has 36 chromosone pairs. A housecat has 38 chromosone pairs.

    In other words, they are not gentically compatible. Period. They are no more genetically compatible then a house dog is with a fox.

    But some people simply can not have science explained to them, they will resist any explanations no matter what.
     
  18. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,293
    Likes Received:
    4,346
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Really? You don't understand basic biology. This is why the lying creationists fool you so easily. You don't even know MIDDLE SCHOOL biology.

    Mutts don't contain all of the DNA from both of their parents (they only contain half of the DNA from each of the parents). Let me explain, since you obviously don't understand this at all. A dog has 78 chromosomes (39 pairs) in a diploid cell. During meiosis (part of the formation of either egg or sperm), the nucleus of the sex cells divides in two, and the resulting egg or sperm (i.e. the sex cells) has 39 chromosomes, not 78. When the dogs reproduce, those 39 from each parent go to form the fertilized egg, with a total of 78. In that 78 there is not enough of the characteristics of each breed to produce that breed again, unless the mutt is mated with a mutt that has the same characteristics. Even if the mutt is bred back to it's sibling, there is almost no chance (one in a million probably) that a purebred of either of the original breeds will result.
     
  19. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    62,113
    Likes Received:
    17,011
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Good point - that should make it clear that there is an essentially impossible hurdle.
     
  20. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    62,113
    Likes Received:
    17,011
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, even the most basic genetics refutes most of what this person has said about biology throughout this entire thread.

    BUT, the part I really don't understand is why this person continues to propose the arguments in ICR.ORG (for example) when they are so easily and consistently proven wrong. I'm not expecting a change in religion. But, ICR.ORG is not religion - it's just a site that tries to pit religion against science for some crazy reason, and then does an incredibly bad job of that.

    What attracts someone to actually desire to attach this level of falsity to their GOD?

    It seems more rational to me that the better direction would be to find ways to see God in a positive and truthful light.
     
  21. Maccabee

    Maccabee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    8,902
    Likes Received:
    1,064
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Completely separate from what?
    Like?
    Then show us a mutation that adds new information.
    That doesn't explain how did it got it in the first place.

    - - - Updated - - -

    But you have yet to show a mutation that adds information.
     
  22. Maccabee

    Maccabee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    8,902
    Likes Received:
    1,064
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't think I denied that it was a mutation, I only objected to be a beneficial mutation to which i was proven wrong. It's still not adding new information though.
    Good then.
    Fine, over millions of years the natural forces made the stake board to be able to take in fuel.
     
  23. Maccabee

    Maccabee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    8,902
    Likes Received:
    1,064
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The appendix is apart of the immune system.

    http://www.m.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20071012/appendix-may-have-purpose

    http://creation.mobi/your-appendix-its-there-for-a-reason
     
  24. Maccabee

    Maccabee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    8,902
    Likes Received:
    1,064
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not entirely sure.
    No because that's doubling existing information.
    And the fact that we never seen anything above families splitting.

    Here's an article debunking that.


    https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j22_3/j22_3_16.pdf
     
  25. Maccabee

    Maccabee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    8,902
    Likes Received:
    1,064
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Which makes up one dog.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page