+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 46
Latest: Tony Ryan
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 12385
Total Topics: 257
Most Online Today: 3
Most Online Ever: 137
(April 21, 2019, 04:54:01 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 0
Total: 0

Author Topic: Darwin  (Read 7266 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24083
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
We don’t need the Bible to know we have a moral obligation   

Ashvin, I just read this. It's been over a year since I reviewed that passage. I find it useful as a reminder that we don’t need the Bible to know we have a moral obligation to worship God and give thanks to Him. I provide it for you to use in your arguments with those who love to mock scripture. They don't have a logical leg to stand on but they never stop trying to pretend they are being reasonable and ethical. So it goes.

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness, because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts were darkened” (Romans 1:18–21, NET; emphases added).


Gandhi, though not a Christian, explained the principles of morality in human behavior by detailing what IMMORALITY in human behavior is. Everyone that has two brain cells to rub together is well aware of how celebrated that immorality is in modern culture. Of course most of them think morality (and immorality) came from natural selection and random mutations. They also think immoral, devious behavior is an evolutionary mark of intelligence because meat eating predators use tricks to fool their prey while those that aren't meat eaters don't. We know better.

Gandhi's Seven Sins:
1. Wealth without work
2. Pleasure without conscience
3. Knowledge without character
4. Commerce without morality
5. Science without humanity
6. Worship without sacrifice
7. Politics without principle


Agelbert NOTE:
The COMMON GROUND on the seven Wall Street principles of Evolutionary Success above is: The ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness.


Anyone who thinks Gandhi became aware of these human failings because he was "highly evolved" is a DELUDED FOOL.
This poor man cried, and the Lord heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles.. -- Psalm 34:6

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24083
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #76 on: January 26, 2015, 09:39:09 pm »
Ashvin
The problem you have here is that you are dealing with a pack of fine fellows who demarcate everything you say OUT of their "this makes sense" logic circuits before they even frame an answer. Consequently, you get a large helping of snark, chain pulling and mockery.

These fellows in general, and MKing in particular, have a rather "special" definition of what scientific logic and acceptable discourse is. They are so locked into the consensus view that there ain't no creator and we all just evolved from single celled life which popped out of the "RNA World" one day because of a certain type of crystal structure in a certain type of clay (and so on - all without a shred of reproducibility in the lab) because God just cannot exist! So there!

A real world paleontologist peer reviewer that thinks JUST LIKE MKING had a reaction to Scientist Mary Schweitzer's tissue analysis results on T-Rex soft tissue that exemplifies what you are up against when you try to reason with closed minded types. The tissue was processed 17 TIMES with the same incredible results (scientific hard evidence of T-Rex hemoglobin - IMPOSSIBLE in anything over several thousand years old  :o).

When Schwietzer was getting her paper ready for publishing said repeated and accurate scientific evidence of T-Rex hemoglobin (and soft tissue with blood vessels, collagen and the organic molecules that compose them STILL PRESENT and not fossilized), this is the "logic" that the MKing clone arrogantly assumed:


And then these logic and truth challenged "scientists" have the BRASS to claim they stick to the scientific method! EVERY SINGLE TIME their consensus view is challenged by hard science, they claim the hard science is WRONG!   :emthdown:

That is why MKing is such a joke as a "scientist" and that is why he wastes no time in hurling as much abuse, ridicule and arrogant puffery at anyone who questions his rigid, unscientific views, not just about theism, but a host of other issues as well.

If these fine fellows that worship accept  ;D the "scientific" consensus that life emerged from random mutations and natural selection were green skinned Chlorophyll covered creatures shaped like a giant Paramecium that arrived here from another planet in a flying saucer, they would come to following conclusion when they observed Mount Rushmore:




Ashvin, I have often wondered why you waste your time with these mockers. It may be that you are sort of like Ezekiel, who was sent to talk to people about God even though they would not listen so they would be without excuse when this life is over and they try to claim nobody warned them. May God bless your efforts.
This poor man cried, and the Lord heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles.. -- Psalm 34:6

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24083
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #77 on: January 26, 2015, 10:28:42 pm »
Your assumption that because we all have DNA, synthesize proteins, have form following function analogous "peripherals" like limbs, bone structure, nervous systems, cartilage and so on explains nothing about HOW all these separate and distinct species BECAME separate and distinct from the speciation of single celled life. Correlation is not causation here because life, speciation and replication comes from the DNA code, not from the observed hundreds of thousands of species that are the PRODUCT of a VERY species specific, non-random code sequence that fights tooth and nail to prevent any modifications in it.

The only thing a gene wants to do, is replicate itself. All it wants to do is stay the same. Everything it has ever made - from the first self replicating molecule, to a hair in your armpit - was made so that it can stay the same. It has absolutely zero desire to speciate. All the animals, plants and whatever individuals that carry it, they want to stay the same too.

Trying to maintain homeostasis is one of the main definitions of a living being. And it doesn't just apply to individuals, it applies down the generations. A gene wants to stay the same in the zygote stage, the gamete stage, through the embryonic stage and into the next generation.

This phenomenon is not ignored by the theory of evolution. It is not something that has been overlooked by amateur detectives. You could ask the theory of evolution two questions: how do living beings change? and how do living beings stay the same? The answer is in both cases evolution by natural selection. 


What you have is an individual. It could be a gene, a genome, or a human being - that is three levels of individuation. Then you have everything outside the individual - let's call that everything "nature." Now the individual wants to stay the same, but nature is always changing. Night to day, summer to winter, hot to cold, hospitable to deadly. How does the individual stay the same in this changing environment? It changes! If it doesn't change it doesn't survive. It either has to change itself, or it has to change its environment, but it has to change if it wants to sustain its existence.

What I am saying is not a threat warning agelbert, it's an advice warning. It is completely for the benefit of both of us. Call it a signal - between me and you. It is both honest and true. It is just 4 little words, some pixels on your screen, put there by me to change you. Not only that, but this honest and true signal can replicate itself. it is a meme. It didn't just spring up from nothing, I got it from someone else. That person got it from someone else, they gathered the necessary words together - replicated the meme - and passed it on to me. Now it's my turn to replicate the meme, I gather the words "evolution" "by" "natural" and "selection" and I pass them on:

Evolution by natural selection.

I have done my bit for the meme, so read it; drink it in. It is both honest and true. Now that meme exists on its own, but it also exists in groupings of memes that form unified bodies, such as the teachings of ecology, the teachings of biology and of environmental science. The meme itself exists, because it is in those bodies - and those bodies exist in an environment full of memes in which they survive.

-----------------------

I didn't really join this board to debate the science of life, but what I have to say on doomstead diner is very much informed by the theory of evolution by natural selection, because humans are changing the environment to such an extent, that there will come a time when there is no niche on Earth for the human being to exist in - which is our ultimate doom.

Joseph McCafferty says,
Quote
I didn't really join this board to debate the science of life, ....
You have made that rather clear in every post you have made on this thread. I won't even try to ask you where you get the idea that genes have consciousness (they "want to" what?  ;)). There is a LOT more to genes than replication. Folding and unfolding as well as chaperoning unfolded protein sequences until they arrive at a specific location to be folded just so (SAME sequences folded DIFFERENTLY produce different enzymes and other types of proteins, pal!). There's much. much more to a gene than replication.

But, you are quite comfortable with your world view and not interested in anything that might possibly provide evidence against it.

You demarcate everything I say OUT of your "this makes sense" logic circuits before you even frame an answer. Consequently, you gravitate quickly towards snark, chain pulling and mockery.

You have a rather "special" definition of what scientific logic and acceptable discourse is. You are so locked into the consensus view that we all just evolved from single celled life which popped out of the "RNA World" one day because of a certain type of crystal structure in a certain type of clay (and so on - all without a shred of reproducibility in the lab) because "science" says so! So there! 

A real world paleontologist peer reviewer that thinks JUST LIKE YOU had a reaction to Scientist Mary Schweitzer's tissue analysis results on T-Rex soft tissue that exemplifies what I am up against when I try to reason with closed minded types. The tissue was processed 17 TIMES with the same incredible results (scientific hard evidence of T-Rex hemoglobin - IMPOSSIBLE in anything over several thousand years old  :o).

When Schwietzer was getting her paper ready for publishing said repeated and accurate scientific evidence of T-Rex hemoglobin (and soft tissue with blood vessels, collagen and the organic molecules that compose them STILL PRESENT and not fossilized), this is the "logic" that the Joseph McCafferty clone arrogantly assumed:


And then these logic and truth challenged "scientists" have the BRASS to claim they stick to the scientific method! EVERY SINGLE TIME their consensus view is challenged by hard science, they claim the hard science is WRONG!   :emthdown:

If these you fellows that worship accept  ;D the "scientific" consensus that life emerged from random mutations and natural selection were green skinned Chlorophyll covered creatures shaped like a giant Paramecium that arrived here from another planet in a flying saucer, you would come to following conclusion when you observed Mount Rushmore:



Have a nice day.
This poor man cried, and the Lord heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles.. -- Psalm 34:6

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24083
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #78 on: January 27, 2015, 09:39:33 pm »
Quote
Seriously, T-rex soft tissue?

WHD

Thank you for confirming that your world view of the age of T-Rex is based on beliefs, not science. Don't bother to Google Mary Schweitzer who, by the way, is a scientist that DEFENDS SET (Standard Evolutionary Theory). She was just following the evidence from the hard data, as all true scientists are supposed to do.  :emthup:

Don't bother to study mineralization of bones into fossils. Ignore the empirical evidence that mineralization (where carbon dating becomes impossible because all the organic carbon has been replaced) can take place in less than a century.  ;D

I don't know how old those dino bones are. But what you cannot get through your head is that there is ZERO proof that they are millions of years old. What part of "ZERO PROOF" do you not understand?

Here's what science (not those that claim erroneously, in my view, that the earth was created 6,000 years ago - I agree the ROCKS are billions of years old - the LIFE FORMS are another matter) says about dating technique time measurements:



That's what they use, PERIOD. That's what they have, PERIOD. That's the science, PERIOD.

Now then, what happens when they find a mosquito "fossil" in 20 to 40 million year old rock strata and that mosquito has some amazingly preserved blood from a meal just before it was killed? Yes, that actually happened less than two years ago in some grand canyon rock strata. I reported on it here.

Hemoglobin is a quaternary structured protein that denatures quickly unless, according to scientists, it is preserved in amber. This is the one way that it can last a long, long time without become mineralized. The heme group in the hemoglobin molecule has iron AND CARBON in it.

All organic carbon has a proportion of C-14 to C-12 (the more common isotope of carbon). The older the dead life form is, the less C-14 it has in it. By computing the ratio of C-12 to C-14, they get a date. If that mosquito has ANY C-14 left in that blood, it CANNOT be more than 100,000 years or so old. If it has ZERO C-14, then it can be a lot older. So then they try some other dating technique.

The (near to) Grand Canyon mosquito is not preserved in amber but it has intact blood with intact hemoglobin molecules in it. They haven't figured that one out yet.     

So, a scientist MUST set up two competing hypotheses to explain the data:

1. The strata is improperly dated and the mosquito is not 20 to 40 million years old.
OR
2. The strata is properly dated and science is wrong about how long blood can be preserved in rock strata.


Both of the above lead unavoidably to a shake up of the consensus view about dating methods. Bot are a pain in ARSE to established scientific consensus.  One questions our knowledge of hematology and the denaturing processes in quaternary structured proteins which is used extensively in forensic analysis of dead humans and animals to determine approximate dates of death.  The other brings into question rock strata dating methodology.

But the Darwinists don't want to go where the science leads them, so they question the data. Mary Shweitzer, a scientist that KNOWS which way the "wind" is blowing for her career  :icon_mrgreen:, has gone on record to state that this is the only recorded evidence of the soft tissue preservation by an, as yet, unexplained process, of a life form that died 65 million years ago.  ;) 

Well, at least she didn't reject the data.  ::)

But you did. Thank you for confirming that when the data does not fit your belief system, you reject the data.

Have a nice day.
This poor man cried, and the Lord heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles.. -- Psalm 34:6

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24083
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #79 on: March 08, 2015, 03:43:17 pm »
SET = Standard Evolution Theory

Devolution = descent or degeneration to a lower or worse state.


A Neo-Darwinian SET Apologist tries to have it both ways. A commenter calmly explains that going down is not going up just because both actions evidence change.  


Is the human race evolving or devolving?
July 20, 1998

THE MONEY QUOTES:
Quote

From a biological perspective, there is no such thing as devolution. All changes in the gene frequencies of populations--and quite often in the traits those genes influence--are by definition evolutionary changes.

Chief among these misconceptions is that species evolve or change because they need to change to adapt to shifting environmental demands; biologists refer to this fallacy as teleology. In fact, more than 99 percent of all species that ever lived are extinct, so clearly there is no requirement that species always adapt successfully.

As the fossil record demonstrates, extinction is a perfectly natural--and indeed quite common--response to changing environmental conditions. When species do evolve, it is not out of need but rather because their populations contain organisms with variants of traits that offer a reproductive advantage in a changing environment.

Another misconception is that increasing complexity is the necessary outcome of evolution. In fact, decreasing complexity is common in the record of evolution.


Agelbert NOTE:
At this point, anyone with a lick of sense would say, AHA! It looks like we are becoming LESS fit, not more so, right? This would argue forcefully that natural selection is a subtractive process, right?  ;D

Oh, but you do not understand the pliability of reality when a Dr. Doubletalk wants to say that DOWN is equal to UP.  ;)

Now our dear Dougherty proceeds to defend his accurate statement, not with the wolves to dogs devolution, for which there is DNA SUBTRACTION evidence for, but with the old "fossil record" trick.  ;)

You know, the one that isn't just incomplete, as in 80% complete, but sporadic to missing for millions of years!

You know, the one that only forms in very special conditions.

You know, the one evidenced to be UNNATURAL preservation of mineralized skeletal structures in a biosphere that, with very few exceptions, ALWAYS recycles 100% of living matter.


Never mind all that HARD SCIENTIFC DATA; "scientific" speculation = "irrefutable" evidence is what Evolutionists are famous for.

The following statements are speculative BECAUSE the fossils for all the mentioned vertebrates are assumed to be the precursors of modern vertebrate species from fish TO reptiles TO mammals.  ::)  Yet, our dear scientist uses this speculation as "proof" of his "down is equal to up" illogic. Of course, MKing, Palloy and several others here  will obediently nod their heads up and down as they read this speculation, accepting it as hard "scientific evidence". LOL!
Quote

For example, the lower jaw in vertebrates shows decreasing complexity, as measured by the numbers of bones, from fish to reptiles to mammals. (Evolution adapted the extra jaw bones into ear bones.) Likewise, ancestral horses had several toes on each foot; modern horses have a single toe with a hoof.

Evolution, not devolution, selected for those adaptations.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-human-race-evolvin/

A polite commenter gives Michael J. Dougherty, assistant director and senior staff biologist at Biological Sciences Curriculum Study in Colorado Springs, Colo., the Ashvin knockout punch.   
Quote
THEMAYAN November 8, 2011, 1:22 AM

Its interesting how fast and loose the term evolution can be used.

Is it really honest to say that any change, even degenerative change is evidence of macro evolution simply because even degeneration can technically be considered change, therefore evolution?  ;D

Shouldn't evolution go from simple to more complex, or at least be able to explain where or how the already complex parent population came to exist in the first place? 

Lets either extend the neo Darwinian/modern synthesis, or admit its severe limitations as an explanatory mechanism in being able to quantify macro change. 

The modern synthesis is severely out of date and no longer modern but antiquated.
This poor man cried, and the Lord heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles.. -- Psalm 34:6

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24083
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #80 on: March 08, 2015, 06:52:00 pm »
MKing's non-argument to RE
Quote
Science is about evidence. On this topic, they indicate they have it.

The words "UNTESTABLE' and "ARBITRARY", in the article you claim is "Evidence", means the are speculating. Science certainly DOES include speculation. It REQUIRES it in order to make a hypothesis. that's cool.

Your problem is distinguishing between a PROVEN hypothesis and an UNPROVEN one. You are free, as the scientists in your article are, to claim whatever you wish. But claiming "evidence" of speciation without TESTED and UNARBITRARY evidence is speculation.

The only "EVIDENCE' that the scientific method can accept is actual EVIDENCE.

By the way, adaptation is rather different from speciation. Adaptation occurs when the DNA PACKAGE has genes within it that can be TURNED ON (or off) in certain environmental conditions. No 'evolution' is necessary (see long and short legged dogs from human imposed selection for specialized hunting skills).

Speciation, as claimed by your article, is 100% speculative. Partial speciation does not exist. Either you have it, or you don't.

The only present hard scientific claim to new speciation is that of E. Coli being able to perform some biochemistry that E. coli has "rarely" (according to the scientific literature) been able to perform. Because some Staph species does this routinely, the claim that E. Coli is "evolving" into a Staph like bacterium has been postulated. It occurred spontaneously. This is the longest running attempt to observe 'evolution' in modern science (going for several decades of 24/7 E. Coli multi-thousand generation lab observation as of this date).

Unfortunately for the scientists in the E. coli study, it's STILL E. Coli, not Staph. Besides doing the same biochemical trick that a staph species does, it does nothing else different from E. coli and just about everything different from the staph mentioned.

Nevertheless, this SPECULATION is accepted by the scientific community that claims, like you, that they ONLY deal with evidence. Is accepting this speculation as "evidence" of speciation (and/or evolution) part of the scientific method? NOPE!

I guess somebody else told them to drop their "evidence of speciation" claims I read about last summer. It has disappeared. How prudent of them.  :icon_mrgreen: But they are still valiantly claiming they have "evidence" of EVOLUTION.

E. coli long-term evolution experiment

Quote
The E. coli long-term evolution experiment is an ongoing study in experimental evolution led by Richard Lenski that has been tracking genetic changes in 12 initially identical populations of asexual Escherichia coli bacteria since 24 February 1988.[1] The populations reached the milestone of 50,000 generations in February 2010 and 60,000 in in April 2014.[2]

The RESULTS CLAIMED:
Quote

Evolution of aerobic citrate usage in one population

Evolution of increased cell size in all twelve populations

Continued increase in fitness

Sorry, they are STILL E. Coli. Not only that, but evidence of degraded DNA has emerged. It is a credit to these scientists that they admit it. That is good science.

Quote
Of the 12 populations, four developed defects in their ability to repair DNA, greatly increasing the rate of additional mutations in those strains.

Although the bacteria in each population are thought to have generated hundreds of millions of mutations over the first 20,000 generations, Lenski has estimated that within this time frame, only 10 to 20 beneficial mutations achieved fixation in each population, with fewer than 100 total point mutations (including neutral mutations) reaching fixation in each population.[4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

On the other hand, the claimed evolution evidence results HAVE NOT been backed up by genetic evidence showing exactly which NEW plasmid entered into the E. coli genome for all 12 populations to make 'larger cells, aerobic citrate use in one population and the rather nebulous broad claim of "continued increase in fitness" (see wishful thinking).

No ticket, no laundry, MKing. E. coli is the pet bacterium of molecular biologists. The love it more than Drosophila melanagoster (fruit fly! They trained it to make insulin over 30 years ago. They have GMOed the living **** out of it. They KNOW exactly what is in it. they KNOW the sequence of every single gene in it. It's OLD HAT. So WHY don't these brave "do the math" scientists show us the ADDED genetic material that these twelve populations, going for over 60,000 generations now, have used to obtain "evolutionary advantages" (become "fitter"  )?

Because there AIN'T NONE. The environment caused some genes ALREADY PRESENT in the populations to code for larger cells as an ADAPTATION. THAT is Occam's razor logic until they show me the NEW genetic material, pal! Anything else is speculation, period.


E. Coli is the most studied bacterium in science.

If you want to call that evolution, you are free to do so. But it is NOT evolution if no new genetic material is incorporated according to SET.

What we see in four of those populations, and I suspect they will eventually see it in all of them, is degraded genetic material due to natural selection. I hope they continue to be honest about the degradation of DNA. 


I wish you would be honest about that and the fact that you only use the scientific method when it proves some hypothesis and discard it when it doesn't. ;)
This poor man cried, and the Lord heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles.. -- Psalm 34:6

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24083
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #81 on: March 08, 2015, 07:41:03 pm »
How Simple Can Life Be?

Jonathan Sarfati

In Darwin’s day, many people swallowed the theory of spontaneous generation—that life arose from non-living matter. It was somewhat easier to believe because the cell’s structure was almost unknown. Ernst Haeckel, Darwin’s popularizer in Germany, claimed that a cell was a ‘simple lump of albuminous combination of carbon.’1 (Haeckel was also a notorious fraud—he forged embryonic diagrams to bolster the erroneous idea that the embryo’s development recapitulated (re-traced) its alleged evolutionary ancestry)2

But modern science has discovered vast quantities of complex, specific information in even the simplest self-reproducing organism. Mycoplasma genitalium has the smallest known genome of any free-living organism, containing 482 genes comprising 580,000 bases.3 Of course, these genes are only functional with pre-existing translational and replicating machinery, a cell membrane, etc. But Mycoplasma can only survive by parasitizing more complex organisms, which provide many of the nutrients it cannot manufacture for itself. So evolutionists must posit a more complex first living organism with even more genes.

More recently, Eugene Koonin and others tried to calculate the bare minimum required for a living cell, and came up with a result of 256 genes
. But they were doubtful whether such a hypothetical bug could survive, because such an organism could barely repair DNA damage, could no longer fine-tune the ability of its remaining genes, would lack the ability to digest complex compounds, and would need a comprehensive supply of organic nutrients in its environment.4

Yet even this ‘simple’ organism has far too much information to be expected from time and chance, without natural selection. The information theorist Hubert Yockey calculated that given a pool of pure, activated biological amino acids, the total amount of information which could be produced, even allowing 109 years as evolutionists posit, would be only a single small polypeptide 49 amino acid residues long.5

This is about 1/8 the size (therefore information content) of a typical protein, yet the hypothetical simple cell above needs at least 256 proteins. And Yockey’s estimate generously presupposes that the many chemical hurdles can be overcome, which is a huge assumption, as shown by many creationist writers.6

NB: natural selection cannot help, as this requires self-replicating entities—therefore it cannot explain their origin.

[Update 14 February 2006: follow-up research led by Hamilton Smith at the J. Craig Venter Institute in Rockville reveals that the minimum genome consists of 387 protein-coding and 43 RNA-coding genes (Nature 439, 246–247 (19 January 2006) | doi:10.1038/439246a; Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103:425–430, 2006]
http://creation.com/how-simple-can-life-be
This poor man cried, and the Lord heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles.. -- Psalm 34:6

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24083
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #82 on: March 08, 2015, 09:22:03 pm »



This poor man cried, and the Lord heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles.. -- Psalm 34:6

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24083
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #83 on: March 09, 2015, 05:42:46 pm »
Quote
Adaptation and natural selection

In nature creatures have adapted to new environments, and this adaptation took the form of weeding out some genetic information. This is certainly natural selection—evolutionists don’t have a monopoly on this. In fact, a creationist, Edward Blyth, thought of the concept 25 years before Darwin’s Origin of Species was published. But unlike evolutionists, Blyth regarded it as a conservative process that would remove defective organisms, thus conserving the health of the population as a whole. Only when coupled with hypothetical information-gaining mutations could natural selection be creative.

For example, the original dog/wolf kind probably had the information for a wide variety of fur lengths. The first animals probably had medium-length fur. In the simplified example illustrated below,3 a single gene pair is shown under each dog as coming in two possible forms. One form of the gene (L) carries instructions for long fur, the other (S) for short fur.

In row 1, we start with medium-furred animals (LS) interbreeding. Each of the offspring of these dogs can get one of either gene from each parent to make up their two genes.


In row 2, we see that the resultant offspring can have either short (SS), medium (LS) or long (LL) fur. Now imagine the climate cooling drastically (as in the Ice Age). Only those with long fur survive to give rise to the next generation (line 3). So from then on, all the dogs will be a new, long-furred variety. Note that:

They are now adapted to their environment.

They are now more specialized than their ancestors on row 1.

This has occurred through natural selection.

There have been no new genes added.


In fact, genes have been lost from the population—i.e., there has been a loss of genetic information, the opposite of what microbe-to-man evolution needs in order to be credible.  ;D

Now the population is less able to adapt to future environmental changes—were the climate to become hot, there is no genetic information for short fur, so the dogs would probably overheat.

Another information-losing process occurs in sexually reproducing organisms—remember, each organism inherits only half the information carried by each parent. For example, consider a human couple with only one child, where the mother had the AB blood group (meaning that she has both A and B alleles) and the father had the O blood group (both alleles are O and recessive). So the child would have either AO or BO alleles, so either the A or the B allele must be missing from the child’s genetic information. Thus, the child could not have the AB blood group, but would have either the A or the B blood group respectively.4

A large population as a whole is less likely to lose established genes because there are usually many copies of the genes of both parents (for example, in their siblings and cousins). But in a small, isolated population, there is a good chance that information can be lost by random sampling. This is called genetic drift. Since new mutant genes would start off in small numbers, they are quite likely to be eliminated by genetic drift, even if they were beneficial.5

In an extreme case, where a single pregnant animal or a single pair is isolated, e.g., by being blown or washed onto a desert island, it may lack a number of genes of the original population. So when its descendants fill the island, this new population would be different from the old one, with less information. This is called the founder effect.

Loss of information through mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift can sometimes result in different small populations losing such different information that they will no longer interbreed. For example, changes in song or color might result in birds no longer recognizing a mate, so they no longer interbreed. Thus a new ‘species’ is formed.

http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-2-variation-and-natural-selection-versus-evolution
This poor man cried, and the Lord heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles.. -- Psalm 34:6

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24083
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #84 on: March 09, 2015, 07:01:38 pm »
'Parade of Mutants’—Pedigree Dogs and Artificial Selection

by Lita Cosner

Photos from istockphoto

When choosing a pet, many people opt for purebred pedigree dogs. Though they come at a price, it is easier to predict the eventual size, temperament, and needs of a purebred dog breed than for a ‘mutt’. But as a new BBC documentary, “Pedigree Dogs Exposed”,1 shows, the cost of breeding purebred dogs is genetic as well as economic.

All dogs are descendants of a wolf-like ancestor. This ancestor had the genetic diversity that allowed people to breed dogs as different in size as the Chihuahua and the Great Dane. Other traits such as colour, temperament, and exercise needs are just as diverse among the breeds. This great variability is an example of just how much genetic variation is built into the various created animal kinds.2 Other breeds, as will be shown, are the result of downhill mutations.

Genetic specialization

Over many hundreds of years, humans have produced the various breeds by specifically selecting different traits to breed for; there are currently over 200 distinct varieties of dog, but all belong to the same species, and could theoretically breed with each other, though size difference between larger and smaller breeds renders some combinations unlikely.3

The gene pool of the breeds is artificially restricted to the descendants of the originally-registered dogs from the mid-nineteenth century—in some cases, only a handful of dogs.
Over time, breeding only for certain traits allows great predictability in what a dog’s offspring will look like—a Dalmatian mated with a Dalmatian will produce Dalmatian puppies, and so on. When this occurs regularly, the type of dog becomes an official breed. But this predictability comes at a genetic cost. The breeders have drastically reduced the amount of genetic information in the population of dogs—such as for other coat colours and lengths, or different sizes or temperaments. This sort of selection is done on purpose, but there are other traits that are inadvertently selected for as well.

The bigger dog breeds become susceptible to hip dysplasia, others are plagued by heart problems. The King Charles Spaniel is prone to an extremely nasty condition, syringomyelia (SM), in which the skull is too small to house the brain. In the documentary, veterinary neurologist Clare Rusbridge described the condition: “A burning pain, a piston-type headache, abnormal sensations to even light touch, even items of clothing, a collar, for example, can induce discomfort for these animals.” She believes up to one-third of the breed could be affected by this condition.

Overall, there are 500 genetic diseases which are known to occur in dogs. This is fewer than those documented in humans, but in dogs they occur at a much higher rate. The problem is that when the gene pool has been so depleted, it is not possible to avoid breeding diseased dogs, because that would be impoverishing the gene pool even more, and could lead to new diseases and disorders in a breed.
Rusbridge acknowledged this to be true.4

Quote
“Mutts”, or even crossbred dogs, have a much lower chance of having these diseases, because many are genetically recessive—a healthy copy of the gene will override a diseased gene. Because the diseases are also often breed-specific, even breeding two purebred dogs of different breeds will normally produce much healthier offspring than a purebred mating. The mutts will have lower instances of disease as well as being slightly longer-lived on average.

A ‘Perfect’ Animal—Dog Shows

Early dog breeding mimicked natural selection—the dogs that could herd sheep or cattle, or that could defend against intruders, etc., were the ones that were bred to produce the next generation. However, with the advent of dog showing in the middle of the nineteenth century, the focus shifted away from function to aesthetics.

Competitive dog-showing, in its pursuit of perfection, has driven the various breeds to ever more drastic extremes in body proportion and shape. The Dachshund’s legs have become much shorter over the last century, but their long back often gives them spinal problems, and they often suffer epilepsy and eye problems as well. The Bull Terrier’s head has been deformed, as has that of the Pit Bull—the documentary’s computer rendering of how breeders have contorted the skull shapes showed how drastically these breeds have changed in less than a century. Bulldogs have slower relative growth of the nasal bones, and this causes breathing difficulties and the need to be born by Caesarian section.

The German Shepherd shows that these changes are carried out for purely cosmetic reasons. There are actually two varieties of German Shepherd: the working variety, which is often used in police forces and as guard dogs, and the show variety. The former looks very much like the original German Shepherd, but the show variety has a very different shape, with their back ends slouching. Orthopedic surgeon Graham Oliver described the gait of the show dogs as ataxic, lacking full coordination and control. This is the case for most of the show German Shepherds in the dog shows that were covered in the documentary.

Extreme artificial selection

In Britain, an already bad situation has been compounded in many ways by the Kennel Club’s breeding and show dog practices. First, the gene pool of the breeds is artificially restricted to the descendants of the originally-registered dogs from the mid-nineteenth century—in some cases, only a handful of dogs. This means that genetic diversity cannot be re-introduced into a breed, even if this means making the population healthier.  :emthdown:

Second, there is extreme selection for absolute perfection in appearance—breeders seek to produce dogs which adhere to the breed standard as closely as possible. This causes them to remove dogs that fall short of that standard, such as Dalmatians with non-standard markings, albino dogs, or Rhodesian Ridgebacks with no ridge, from the gene pool of the species, either by simply not mating them, or by culling them as puppies. This renders the overall population even more genetically impoverished.  :emthdown:

Third, extreme inbreeding has been the norm—it is common to mate littermates, or to mate a female dog with her “grandfather”, or “mother” to “son”. Evolutionary geneticist Steve Jones criticized the practice: “People are carrying out breeding which would be, first of all, it’s illegal in humans, and second of all, it’s absolutely insane from the point of view of the health of the animals.” Such close interbreeding is done to ‘fix’ certain desirable traits in the line, but it also makes the dogs more disease-prone. The Kennel Club website, www.thekennelclub.org.uk, currently states that “the Kennel Club will not accept an application to register … offspring of any mating between father and daughter, mother and son, and or brother and sister, save in exceptional circumstances, for scientifically-proven welfare reasons.” Even so, the average dog is much more inbred than any human is likely to be.  :emthdown:

Because there is no regulation against breeding dogs which are known to carry a genetic disease like syringomyelia, dogs with conditions like this, if they are popular studs, can go on to sire dozens of litters. This spreads the genetic disease throughout the breed.  :emthdown:

The Eugenics connection

The Eugenics movement, founded by Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton,5 held that the key to human improvement was in controlling who could reproduce with whom—the idea was to improve the race by eliminating undesirable traits, and in disallowing mixing between ‘races’. While we know today that the eugenicists’ ideas about purity make no scientific sense, the documentary argues that The Kennel Club is one of the few organizations that still operate under the fundamental assumptions of eugenics. Every dog registered with the Kennel Club has an ancestry that goes back to the original registered dogs—no new registrations are allowed, and any litters resulting from breeding with non-registered dogs or breeding between two registered dogs of different breeds cannot be registered.

Because of the eugenicist principles in breeding, puppies that do not conform to the strict requirements of the breed standards are sometimes culled. This is particularly the case with Rhodesian Ridgebacks that lack ridges. While the Kennel Club, both through its spokespeople in the documentary and in the Ethics Code on its site, condemns the practice, the documentary contains statements from breeders saying that they routinely cull puppies without ridges. One even lamented the young veterinarians who refused to cull the healthy puppies! (It should be noted that although the Rhodesian Ridgeback Club code of ethics6 prescribed the culling of ridgeless puppies before the documentary aired, the page has since been modified to prohibit such acts.) The ridge is actually a mild form of spina bifida, so a slightly diseased dog is actually preferred to the healthy animal in this breed.

Genetic impoverishment

All these factors together have made modern breeds very genetically impoverished—in some breeds, only 10% of the genetic variety that was in the breed 40 years ago has been passed down to the current descendants of the breed. For instance, the Pug breed in the UK, although it has 10,000 dogs, has the genetic information equivalent to that of 50 distinct individuals. In 2004, Dr Jeff Sampson wrote:

Quote
“Unfortunately, the restrictive breeding patterns that have been developed as part and parcel of the purebred dog scene have not been without collateral damage to all breeds … Increasingly, inherited diseases are imposing a serious disease burden on many, if not all, breeds of dog.”

The Kennel Club, to its credit, has responded to the issues raised by the documentary. It has banned close inbreeding, along with banning the practice of culling healthy puppies for breed points. They have also revised the breed standards to discourage the extreme exaggeration of features to the point that it affects the dog’s health. It also encourages its accredited breeders to make use of any health tests to screen for genetic diseases.

How artificial selection depletes information.


In the example above (simplified for illustration), a single gene pair is shown under each dog as coming in two possible forms. One form of the gene (S) carries instructions for large size, the other (s) for small size.

In row 1, we start with medium-sized animals (Ss) interbreeding. Each of the offspring of these dogs can get one of either gene from each parent to make up their two genes.

In row 2, we see that the resultant offspring can have either large (SS), medium (Ss) or small (ss) size. But let’s suppose that breeders want large dogs. They would select the largest dogs in the next generation to breed. Thus only the big dogs pass on genes to the next generation (line 3). So from then on, all the dogs will be a new, large variety. This is artificial selection, but natural selection would work on the same principle, if large dogs would do better in their environment.

Note that:

1. They are now adapted  to their environment, in this case breeders who want big dogs.

2. They are now more specialized  than their ancestors on row 1.

3. This has occurred through artificial selection , and could have occurred through natural selection.

4. There have been no new genes added

5. In fact, genes have been lost from the population—i.e. there has been a loss of genetic information, the opposite of what microbe-to-man evolution needs in order to be credible.

6. Not only genes for smallness were lost, but any other genes these small dogs carried. They may have had genes for endurance, strong sense of smell, and other things, but they are lost from the population. Genes on their own are not selected; it’s the whole creature and all the genes they carried.

7. Now the population is less able to adapt to future environmental changes—if small dogs became fashionable, or would perform better in some environment, they could not be bred from this population. They are also genetically impoverished since they lack the good genes that happened to be carried by the small dogs.


Conclusion

The current state of many of the dog breeds shows what happens when selection is taken too far. These dogs, far from being more perfect, ‘evolved’, animals, were described as “a parade of mutants” by one critic in the documentary. Because they are over-specialized, they are more prone to disease and shorter-lived than their ‘mongrel’ relatives. It is clear that both artificial and natural selection work by decreasing the amount of genetic information in a population, which is the exact opposite of what evolution would require.

http://creation.com/mutant-parade-purebred-dogs
This poor man cried, and the Lord heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles.. -- Psalm 34:6

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24083
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #85 on: March 09, 2015, 08:55:51 pm »
Palloy,
I'll have to look up "clade".      I'll get back to you.

But really, old chum, this is NOT about being "on to something", what Darwin thought back then or what the church thinks now or then. ALL of that is irrelevant.

What is relevant is:

1. How many complex proteins are REQUIRED for the simplest life form? Molecular biologists have come up with numbers UNRELATED to creationist views. Atheist mathematicians have plugged the numbers in to our 14 billion year agreed age of the universe and come up short for the required time for single celled life. They know a bit more about biochemistry and probability and statistics than you do. And, as you know, in this universe, the laws of thermodynamics have a 24/7 effect on any and all events. ALL those events, if they require an ordered sequence, like complex proteins certainly do, MUST occur according to factorial computations. That's where you do not want to go, Mr. Mathematician. I suggest you review factorial math and random activity. You can give me the finger if you so desire. I don't care. Factorial is IT when you need 256 complex proteins to function ALL AT ONCE in a precisely ordered sequence.

2. You were the one that brought up the dogs. Then you dump a diagram far more complex about dog evolution than the one I posted abut trees and natural selection. You cannot ASSUME evolution just because life exists today. You need a mechanism. That mechanism is allegedly NATURAL SELECTION. That's what we are supposed to be debating, is it not?

Then you come up with all sorts of equations and start discussing alphabet soup patterns with RE. But the tree diagram is too complex for you and you don't want to read all the 'stuff' I "dump", even if it is from American Scientific?

Then you hairsplit with me about the Dire Wolf. I mentioned him because science is in agreement that he DID NOT pass on his genes to the present even though he was an apex predator in his time. As a side issue we can have a good time talking about how "apex predators", according to Darwin himself, DO NOT SURVIVE unless they cooperate in the hunt and in the protection of each other's offspring while some hunt and others show empathy, by caring for the young of others in the group. But you are enamored of that "apex predator" term, are you not? I can understand that. It's been drilled into your head since you were knee high to a grasshopper. I can talk to you until I'm blue in the face about biomass and trophic levels in the biosphere but you will remain fixated on "apex predators" as the be all, end all of evolution. I think even Darwin might have issues with your "apex predator" = MOST SUCCESSFUL views.
[

And you want me to keep it simple? Healer, heal thyself! I am trying to keep it simple.

And no, many species are alive today, NOT, as you claimed, because they are 'successful', but because ANOTHER SPECIES (see humans and dogs) is keeping them from going extinct.

The gray wolf is not as strong as a tiger but tigers are more endangered than grey wolves. WHY? Because wolves COOPERATE and empathize with other members of their clan for the good of the whole group, even at the expense of an individual that DOES NOT breed (not the alpha male or female). Tigers do not do that. Their offspring are in danger every time the tigress goes out to hunt. The more successful of the two species is the grey wolf BECAUSE he has the "strength in numbers" trait of ruminants. A trait, by the way, that Darwin puzzled about. He could not understand how natural selection would preserve cooperation and empathy in a world of tooth hand nail ruthless predation.       He, like you, was rather partial to "apex predators", despite his reservations about accepting the Wall Street amorality (i.e."KILL BECAUSE YOU CAN") as a basic tenet of SET successful "apex predator" species perpetuation.

But that's another subject that evolutionists abhor because it makes NO SENSE, from an evolutionary standpoint, to take care of the alpha female's pups when you will never get a chance to breed. Maybe that is where you are going with that "clade" thing. It looks like dancing to me.

3. Is natural selection a DNA SUBTRACTIVE PROCESS or not? See my last two posts on Dog Devolution.  :icon_mrgreen:

If you do not wish to delve seriously into those three issues, you are not serious about debating the validity or invalidity of Standard Evolution Theory (SET).

Have a nice day.
This poor man cried, and the Lord heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles.. -- Psalm 34:6

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24083
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #86 on: March 09, 2015, 08:57:30 pm »
Palloy,
NO, I do NOT agree to using the term "clade".
Quote

Clade and ancestor

A clade is by definition monophyletic, meaning it contains one ancestor (which can be an organism, a population, or a species) and all its descendants.[note 1][3][4] The ancestor can be known or unknown; any and all members of a clade can be extant or extinct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clade

It is far too general a term. I prefer something more specific.

You obviously are allergic to using Canis lupus as the ideal "Dog" since dogs and wolves have a common ancestor further back. That's dancing.  :emthdown: The Grey wolf is sufficiently superior to dogs to be used as an example of an ideal "dog".  Yet the Grey wolf, the CLOSEST REALTIVE TO A MODERN DOG, shares an ANCESTOR with dogs, so you don't want to go there.

Nevertheless according to Wikipedia,
Quote
"any and all members of a clade can be extant".
You want to split hairs about some common dog and wolf ancestor (i.e. NON-GREY WOLF DNA in dogs) that is extinct, even though the AMOUNT OF GREY WOLF DNA in the first dogs probably was about 90% (or more) of the other ancestor. How convenient.  ;)

And this "supreme apex predator humans caring for dogs = dogs are a SUCCESSFUL wolf spinoff species" is the best joke of the century, considering how well we are "taking care" of ourselves.



You have a peculiar sense of humor, Palloy. I like mine better.     

 
This poor man cried, and the Lord heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles.. -- Psalm 34:6

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24083
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #87 on: March 10, 2015, 07:50:35 pm »


This poor man cried, and the Lord heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles.. -- Psalm 34:6

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24083
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #88 on: March 10, 2015, 08:09:03 pm »
Science has decided that dogs are a great 'model' to USED TO STUDY genetic diseases for the good of Homo SAPS. How convenient for us that we, thanks to human (in)breeders, have this 'model' of DNA degradation to allegedly help us avoid the SAME FATE. Never mind trying to reverse the damage WE HAVE DONE to canis lupus, let's USE those dogs for the 'good' of SCIENCE (see opportunistic, anthropocentric, egocentric, greedy, arrogant and ethics free behavior = supreme apex predator).
Quote
Dog (Canis lupus)
The dog genome is similar in size to the genomes of humans and other mammals, containing an estimated 2.8 billion DNA base pairs.

Due to a long history of selective breeding, many breeds of dogs are prone to genetic diseases including cancer and autoimmune disorders that are difficult to study in humans.
FULL QUOTE for those SET worshippers to read and CELEBRATE the triumph of supreme apex predator HOMO SAPS over all those silly religious superstitions like morality and ethics in regard to other life forms in this biosphere.       
Quote
Dog (Canis lupus)

Description:
Man’s best friend is a valuable model organism for studying the genetics of complex traits. It is also an excellent model for researching numerous diseases requiring subtle phenotyping.

Transcript:
Man’s best friend is a valuable model organism for studying the genetics of complex traits. It is also an excellent model for researching numerous diseases requiring subtle phenotyping. The dog genome is similar in size to the genomes of humans and other mammals, containing an estimated 2.8 billion DNA base pairs. A comparison of the dog and human genomes could help scientists find the genetic roots of dog behavior and physiology and help to identify genes that cause diseases in both dogs and humans. Canine models have played an important role in advancing biomedical knowledge and techniques. Due to a long history of selective breeding, many breeds of dogs are prone to genetic diseases including cancer and autoimmune disorders that are difficult to study in humans.

Keywords:
dog, Canis lupus, model, system, organism, genetic diseases


http://www.dnalc.org/view/1713-Dog-Canis-lupus-.html
 


This poor man cried, and the Lord heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles.. -- Psalm 34:6

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24083
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #89 on: March 10, 2015, 09:13:32 pm »
Now let us compare the average healthy dog with the average healthy wolf.

My premise continues to be that human induced Selection Pressures have DEGRADED the DNA of the dog MORE SO than Natural Selection has degraded that of the Grey Wolf.

I have not encountered a study comparing ancient Grey Wolf DNA with modern Grey wolf DNA to prove the main hypothesis from which the above premise springs. That is, that in both cases, DNA is being degraded. If I do, I'll post on the differences.

However, from the following short video you will see that the modern version of the average Grey Wolf appears to be smarter than the average Dog. And for those who think large dogs like mastiffs  or the wolf hound are equal or better than the wolf in hunting abilities, I have bad news for you. They are not.

Please watch this short video. I will provide a written comparison later today or tomorrow.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4qN_FYMnBg&feature=player_embedded
This poor man cried, and the Lord heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles.. -- Psalm 34:6

 

+-Recent Topics

Doomstead Diner Daily by Surly1
June 24, 2019, 06:27:38 am

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
June 24, 2019, 12:09:49 am

The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth by AGelbert
June 23, 2019, 06:28:48 pm

U.S. History & Politics, Climate Change, Trump Impeachment & Standing Rock: CONTEXT by AGelbert
June 23, 2019, 05:11:37 pm

Fossil Fuel Profits Getting Eaten Alive by Renewable Energy! by AGelbert
June 23, 2019, 04:03:37 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
June 23, 2019, 03:58:34 pm

Profiles in Courage by AGelbert
June 23, 2019, 01:06:59 pm

Key Historical Events ...THAT YOU MAY HAVE NEVER HEARD OF by AGelbert
June 22, 2019, 10:03:08 pm

DRUGS - HISTORY - USE AND ABUSE - DOCTOR AND PATIENT MISTAKES by AGelbert
June 22, 2019, 02:03:45 pm

Money by AGelbert
June 22, 2019, 01:39:29 pm