+- +-

+-User

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

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 51
Latest: JUST4TheFACTS
New This Month: 1
New This Week: 1
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 13682
Total Topics: 269
Most Online Today: 4
Most Online Ever: 137
(April 21, 2019, 04:54:01 am)
Users Online
Members: 1
Guests: 0
Total: 1

Author Topic: Darwin  (Read 7652 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30733
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #90 on: March 10, 2015, 09:27:59 pm »
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30733
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #91 on: March 11, 2015, 06:16:37 pm »
Comment on an article on non-human  predators and the public attitude towards them:
Quote
"Predators have undergone a remarkable transformation in the public consciousness in the last century. While certainly not universally admired they certainly get more favorable press than in years past."

Agelbert reply:
Especially the human ones... See News Media, CEOs and Wall Street...

The non-human predators get a bum rap while the human ones that stupidly do not limit their predation to what they need to live and eat, thereby endangering ALL of the biosphere, get the ALPHA MALE moniker in a truly Orwellian distortion of reality in nature.

I blame the deliberate ignoring of the massive levels of cooperation, nurturing and symbiotic interdependent caring observed in nature and the hyping of the relatively TINY, though important, role that predation plays in the perpetuation of species
.

The biomass of the trophic levels that eat SUNLIGHT far exceeds that of the higher order trophic levels. In fact, without the phototrophic life forms, no high order intelligence or predator can exist in our biosphere. We ALL indirectly are eating SUNLIGHT! That does not make us parasitic of, commensal or symbiotic with the sun. The sun is NOT our "prey"; it is what gives us LIFE with no sweat off its back, period. But that is glossed over in scientific studies.

The mistaken view, taught to all of us as 'evolutionary' wisdom'  ;), that in nature EVERY life form is in a 24/7 competitive life or death struggle in a predation pecking order totem pole where only the top position (apex predator) is the "crown" of evolution  (when the reality is a small minority of the total biosphere biomass!)  is duplicitous and ignorant.   >:(

I blame, not just the Theory of Evolution, but the Racist/Wall Street greedball self serving DISTORTED interpretation of biosphere cause and effect FROM THE START!   

 Even Darwin DID NOT advocate that "ONLY THE STRONGEST SURVIVE".


Yes, apex predators are admirable.
A Gray Wolf's teeth and bite strength are superior to any dog's (Due to degraded wolf DNA, a dog's teeth cannot break through a deer's throat). But he needs that to survive. He does not kill unless he is hungry. And even this 'evolutionary advantage' would doom him to extinction without his cooperative pack hunting activity and care of its young.

But that's too "touchy feely" for the "apex predator" worshippers. Our society has become a culture that HONORS and CELEBRATES the ability to KILL as proof of viability in nature when that is EXACTLY backwards.

But Wall Street likes it. The DISTORTION of Natural Selection Principles through propaganda justifying rampant, unchecked predation as the sine qua non of an "Apex Predator" (not!) is DRILLED into every child's mind by the SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.    >:(

And that's why no kid in high school gives a second though to cutting a frog open and killing him in the name of "science".

Nature is, and always was, about LIFE, not DEATH.


"A society that loses the capacity for the sacred, that lacks the power of human imagination, that cannot practice empathy, ultimately ensures its own destruction"
Chris Hedges


If you think the scientific community does not contribute to this mindset with all the KILLING they do for "science" and "the good of society", I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

We need a paradigm shift in science. Science should not be for sale to justify human cruelty against other humans and other earthlings, PERIOD.   

           

Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30733
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #92 on: March 11, 2015, 07:51:47 pm »
Robert Wayne, evolutionary biologist at the University of California at Los Angeles, studies Wolf and dog DNA. His results are discussed below.

The author starts out okay. The title, while admitting we have done damage by inbreeding, paradoxically brands dogs as parasites, instead of branding us as ethics free opportunists, totally  responsible for the dog DNA damage. That is a taste of the pity party for mankind the author dreams up after presenting the DNA study results.

I present snippets form the 3 part article because it provides hard evidence about wolf and dog DNA degradation.

The writer eventually goes off into evidence free evolutionary speculation. Instead of castigating mankind for bottlenecking wolf/dog DNA, dogs are praised for being the "SMART" wolves that "used" humans while the wolves that stayed in the wild are "less fit".    I think the author pushes fossil fuels and climate denial in his spare time.   :P

Recent explorations into the field of canine genetics are changing the way we think about man's best friend -- "man's best parasite" may be more like it -- and could help us repair the damage done by a century of inbreeding
by Stephen Budiansky

A few years ago Aguirre and several others decided to put on their scientists' hats and apply the tools of modern biology to the study of the dog genome. Their motivation was to try to understand the genetic roots of the particularly devastating inborn degenerative diseases that cause certain breeds -- notably, miniature poodles, Norwegian elkhounds, Irish setters, collies, and cocker spaniels -- to go blind. These diseases, characterized by night blindness followed by progressive deterioration of daytime vision, bear a striking similarity to the human condition known as retinitis pigmentosa.

More-conventional sponsors of scientific research, such as the National Institutes of Health and the American Cancer Society, have begun to fund the study of canine genetics, because dog disease and human disease are turning out to be closely linked. More than twenty inborn diseases in dogs have been traced to specific defective genes; in every case the same defective gene has been found in human beings. Dogs even carry the brca 1gene, which was identified a few years ago as causing a significantly increased risk of breast cancer in women. Probably 90 to 95 percent of the dog genome and the human genome are identical.

Snippet 1
The view that dogs came along at about the same time as human beings settled down is so widespread and so often repeated in standard texts that it is more than a bit surprising to find genetic evidence flatly contradicting it. The evidence comes from a study by Robert Wayne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California at Los Angeles, who has applied the modern tools of genetic fingerprinting to dogs, coyotes, wolves, and jackals.

Wolves and coyotes differ by about six percent in their mitochondrial DNA, and, according to fossil evidence, separated from a common ancestor about a million years ago. Wolves and dogs differ by about one percent; using the wolf-coyote time scale, this suggests that they parted company about 135,000 years ago -- a lot earlier than the date implied by the first distinctly non-wolflike dog fossil.

Snippet 2
Wayne's study also definitively laid to rest an assertion made by both Charles Darwin and Konrad Lorenz -- that more than one wild canid species had to have made an appearance in the dog's recent family tree, given the diversity of physical types and behaviors exhibited across the range of modern dog breeds. In fact, long sequences of dog mitochondrial DNA are similar or identical to those in gray wolves, and analysis of the highly variable markers in the regular DNA of dogs and wolves shows a considerable overlap there as well. Jackals and coyotes, though they can interbreed with dogs and produce fertile offspring, possess quite distinct groups of mitochondrial DNA sequences.

Snippet 3
The most striking discovery Wayne's team made was that there is almost no correlation between a dog's breed and the mitochondrial DNA sequences it carries. In eight German shepherds the scientists found five distinct sequences; in six golden retrievers they found four. And the same sequences repeatedly showed up in many different, and apparently quite unrelated, breeds. The Mexican hairless, or Xolo, a breed known from historical and archaeological records to have existed more than 2,500 years ago in Aztec Mexico -- and which presumably separated from Old World breeds some 12,000 years ago, when the Bering land bridge disappeared -- contained representatives of all the major mitochondrial DNA sequences found in dogs throughout the world. (The Xolo sequences also resembled those of Old World wolves much more closely than those of New World wolves.)

Snippet 4
Wayne's study also suggests that for a long time the genetic difference between a dog and a wolf was too small to cause any striking morphological change that would show up in the fossil record.

Snippet 5
Wayne's conclusion is that the earliest dogs "must have been integrated somehow into human society" to keep them genetically isolated from the surrounding population of wild wolves, and also that the domestication of dogs from wild populations must have been "a rare event" -- something that happened only a few times in history.

Snippet 6 (Agelbert NOTE: This is the mandatory bowing and scraping to the UNINTELLIGENT INTELLIGENCE of Natural Selection (i.e. evolution's "indispensable" mechanism). And even a quote form a SET high priest philosopher for us to all say "AMEN" to.  LOL!
The wonder and beauty of natural selection is that it is creative; it crafts solutions that for all intents and purposes seem to reflect intelligence -- "unthinking" intelligence, as the philosopher Daniel Dennett aptly put it. The evolutionarily correct way to state all this is that ... (speculation and story telling omitted by Agelbert - go to the link if you want to swallow it). If the author had been REALLY interested in the 'evolutionary correct way' (i.e. natural selection effects) to state this or that, he would have paid more attention to the DNA degradation of 150 years versus 100,000 years discussed at the end of the article. But he totally ignored the significance of that 'minor detail'.  ;) :evil4: 

Snippet 7 (Agelbert NOTE: ASS backwards logic used to JUSTIFY the alleged evolutionary advantage of the wolves that became dogs over the wolves that are still wolves. This, in the face of this study by Robert Wayne that PLAINLY established how genetically UNDIVERSE dogs are! WTF!).  ::)
Although wolves today are the most widespread wild land mammal in the world -- with a range that extends from North America to Europe to Asia, encompassing everything from semi-desert to tundra to subtropical forest -- their total population probably numbers no more than 150,000. In the United States there are about 50 million owned dogs and millions more unowned -- eloquent evolutionary testimony to the wisdom of mooching off people rather than fighting it out in the wild.

Agelbert NOTE: Did you get that? It's FAR BETTER to hang around humans and get 500 inherited genetic disorders than stay in the wild. There are millions and millions of more wolf mutants known as dogs than there are wolves, so dogs are OBVIOUSLY more "evolutionarily" successful. Does it ever occur to these wonders of pretzel logic what would happen to dogs if we weren't there? I guess not.

Remember, "mooching, ass kissing, bowing and scraping to Homo SAPs = evolutionary advantage".
NOT!


Snippet 8
By now nearly everyone has heard about the evils of inbreeding in dogs, and hip dysplasia and other hereditary diseases are forever being cited by animal-rights activists in their campaigns against pet ownership in general and dog breeders in particular. Such defects are often presented as the inevitable consequence of any attempt by humankind to manipulate or direct the evolution of a species toward characteristics it happens to fancy.

Agelbert NOTE: But PRIOR to 1870, Wayne's study shows dogs were doing okay in their genetic diversity.  :emthup:

Snippet 9
As Wayne's genetic data show, interbreeding and a flow of genes on a worldwide scale was continuing even as this segregation into types was taking place. The types were distinct in both physical appearance and behavior; they clearly had been selected with specific human aims in mind. But the crucial point is that these dogs were defined by form and function rather than by parentage. They were what livestock breeders would today call "open" or "grade" breeds.

Aglebert NOTE: And then came DARWIN.  :P

Snippet 10
Beginning around 1870, however, with the establishment of kennel clubs in Britain and the United States, closed breeding books were introduced in the name of developing and maintaining "purebred" animals. A dog could be registered as a Vizsla only if both of its parents were registered as Vizslas. There was more than a little racist thinking behind all of this; writings about animal breeding from the late 1800s and early 1900s are full of exhortations to eliminate "weaklings" and to invigorate the race by maintaining the "purity" of its "blood lines."
Look up any bibliography of dog books and the name Leon Fradley Whitney is sure to appear. Whitney was the author of many standard works, including The Complete Book of Dog Care (still in print), This Is the Cocker Spaniel, Bloodhounds and How to Train Them, and How to Breed Dogs.
What you won't find in a dog bibliography is some other Whitney works, including The Case for Sterilization, a paean to eugenics published in 1934. It was such a definitive treatment that the author received a letter of appreciation from no less an authority on the subject than Adolf Hitler. (Whitney in turn publicly hailed Hitler's "great statesmanship" in ordering the sterilization of the feeble-minded and the insane. In an unpublished autobiography written four decades later Whitney still defended his stance, maintaining that "no ruler ever before had had the courage or the knowledge to put sterilization to work." He allowed, however, that in the 1930s he had not been aware "what a vile human being" Hitler was.)

Snippet 11
Genetic data confirm that the past century of dog breeding has produced some extremely inbred animals. Surveys using gene markers show that the chance that two members of a typical human family will have a different combination of genes at a given site is about 71 percent. In crossbred dogs it is 57 percent, in most purebred dogs 22 percent, and in some rare breeds four percent. Even crossbred dogs are more inbred than the most inbred human populations (the Amish, for example, or families in India in which uncle-niece marriages take place).

Snippet 12
Many breeds suffer from the "popular sire effect" as well, and here criticism of the breeding world is more justifiable. A stud dog that wins a blue ribbon at a major show may father hundreds of litters, swamping the gene pool with his virtues -- and defects -- and crowding out some other ancestral lines altogether. The problem is worse in breeds that have gone through a genetic bottleneck. A number of breeds that exhibit strange recessive ailments, including Irish wolfhounds, flat-coated retrievers, Portuguese water dogs, and Shar-Peis, almost disappeared at some point during this century and were reconstituted from very small populations.

Snippet 13
Fixing the Damage
One strikingly counterintuitive conclusion of modern genetic studies is that the worst way to correct these mistakes of the past is to weed the carriers of genetic diseases out of the breeding population. The central fallacy of the racist view of eugenics was embodied in the claim that purity is genetically invigorating. In fact just the opposite is true -- genetic diversity is invigorating (thus "hybrid vigor," well known to agricultural breeders), because it helps to ensure that breeding for homozygosity in desirable traits doesn't at the same time breed for homozygosity in undesirable traits at other sites on the genome.  :emthup:

Snippet 14
A number of breeders are seeking genetic probes not to detect disease but rather to measure "genetic purity" -- to test, for example, if a Vizsla really is a Vizsla, or if (horrors) tainted blood has crept in. But breeding for the purity of the breed is like hiring a storyteller not on the basis of how well he tells stories but after looking at how many generations of Irishmen he has in his background.  :emthup:  :icon_mrgreen:

Snippet 15
We can take some reassurance, too, from the fact that mutts, owned and unowned, will always be with us.  :emthup: :icon_sunny: Despite the efforts of neo-eugenicists    :evil4: to ostracize them, mutts constitute a vibrant reservoir of canine genetic diversity. Mutts tend to be healthy dogs, because of hybrid vigor. They also tend to be good dogs.  
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/99jul/9907dogs2.htm

Agelbert NOTE: I agree with the author that mutts are less degraded than the pure (crap) breeds.

However, I do not agree that the dog is as robust genetically as the wolf or the allegation that the wolf "used" humanity to get a free lunch. That's backwards. The evidence of DNA degradation shows which species is the guilty party here.

And the evidence certainly DOES NOT point to "undoing" the damage with mutt diversity just because the Darwinian "pure bloodline" bullshit didn't take off until 1870. The old "blink of an eye" (trick to lowball the DNA damage we have done) in evolution, as the author defines the last 150 years, ASS-U-ME-S that the damage we FORCED on the dog in 150 years can be undone in the same time period. NOPE! Mankind does not have that skill. But we are supposed to trust that science will "someday soon" figure it all out. SURE! So that's why they want to EXPERIMENT on the dogs! They are just trying to help the DOGS out, not humans. LOL!

Let's stop with the wishful thinking, okay? Let's look at the FACTS about the present DNA dog situation. They target dogs as a 'model' for experimentation BECAUSE they DON"T **** KNOW who stop the DNA degradation BOX CANYON we put the dogs in. If they KNEW how to stop the 500 inherited genetic disorders, they would ALREADY have gene therapy for them. THEY DON'T!

But there is more. There convenient 'evolution' blink of an eye isn't doing the natural selection math, according to the Wayne study. They are lowballing the **** out of how long it would take to 'fix' the dog DNA to where it was before the 19th century BECAUSE we Homo saps, according to Wayne's study, forced MORE deleterious selection pressures on dogs in 150 years than said dogs experienced (allegedly at the hands of "less enlightened' Homo saps prior to Darwin - NOT!) in the previous 80 to 100 THOUSAND years!  :o


According to the study, at least 80,000 YEARS went by while the wolf/dog genetic diversity barely changed! That means the WE FORCES MULTIPLES of SELECTION DNA DEGRADATION of the 80,000 years time period. We VISITED, maybe a million years of natural selection subtraction on those wolf/dogs in 150 years! We do not have a **** clue, biologically speaking, how to undue thousands of years of DNA degradation, PERIOD.

Homo SAPS did the crime. We need to accept our responsibility for it an resolve to demonize the (SET originated racist as well as unscientific) concept of PURE BREEDS altogether while we seek, through gene therapy and out breeding, to return the genetic diversity of the Grey wolf to the Dog as best we can, PERIOD. 


We are good at bottlenecks and lousy at diversity. So it goes. ALL inbreeding should be punishable by prison and fines. All kennel clubs and breed names should be considered an assault on common decency. NO breed should EVER be allowed to breed with another member of it's Homo SAP arbitrarily, selfishly and opportunistically created "breed", PERIOD.
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30733
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #93 on: March 11, 2015, 10:26:24 pm »
The dog and the wolf are actually the same species. Their physical appearance is similar but their instincts, disposition and temperament vary widely.

The gray wolf, or simply the wolf is the largest wild member of the Canidae family. The dog is the domesticated form of the gray wolf. Genetic drift studies and DNA sequencing confirm that domestic dog shares a common ancestry with the gray wolf.

Eurasia and North America used to hold most of the world’s wolf population but the numbers have begun to dwindle due to human encroachment. Dogs are commonly seen in any place that is inhabited by people.


Comparison Chart

Category                         Dog                    Grey wolf
Kingdom                         Animalia                     Animalia
Phylum                          Chordata                      Chordata
Family                         Canidae (Canis lupus familiaris)                     Canidae (Canis lupus)
Class                         Mammalia                     Mammalia
Order                         Carnivora                     Carnivora
Genus                         Canis                      Canis
Species                         Canis lupus familiaris                     Canis lupus
Hunting ability                         Due to their domestication, dogs have a weaker instinct to hunt. most breeds of dog's teeth are too small to rip open a deer's throat, indicating an adaptation to a different diet.                     Wolves hunt in packs, allowing them to cooperate and take down much larger prey.
Life Expectancy                         7-20 years Average                     7 years in the wild, 15 years in captivity.
Grooming                          Less frequent if short-haired, very frequent if longer-haired to avoid matting                     none
Loneliness                         Can be left alone during the day if necessary, but usually require attention throughout the day. Varies widely between breeds.                      They can live alone, as lone wolves, but even lone wolves usually find a mate and make a pack of their own. Wolves need other wolves.
Space                          Depends on breed                     They need tons of space for territories, but the space they need depends on the pack's size.
Physical Characteristics                          Dogs have "cuter" traits and a wider range of traits, due to the domestication. But in general, dogs have shorter snouts, a wide range of coat colors, thinner legs, and thinner coat.                     Wolves have longer muzzles and legs, larger feet and a broader skull. Wolves have physically larger brains.
Affection                         Affectionate if taken care of                     These are wild animals and people should not bother them for affection
Domestication                         The dog can be domesticated, are great companions and are suitable as pets at home.                     A wolf is a wild animal and not are suitable as pets. They are trainable only to a minimal extent, and that training is not passed on to their offspring.
Sound                         The  A dog barks but can howl when necessary. Sometimes growl at slight disturbances. Dogs also bark for joy.                     A wolf usually howls to bond with their pack, barking softly to another wolf occasionally if another comes on its territory.
Protection                         Some are protective of their owner. They are very protective of their pack mates. Social existence Dogs "in the streets" usually roam in packs. Dogs always live near humans, even if they are ownerless. They scavenge human waste. 3 week old puppies already approach humans.                     Wolves have stronger instincts and love to live in packs away from civilization.
Good with children                           If socialized. Some small dogs are OK with children but are fragile if handled roughly. Wait until children are 8 years old before getting a dog. Ironically, some small breeds are the most agressive.                     As with any wild animals, you should be careful and never bother them or let your children do.
Energy                         The depends on age and breed.                     They have lots of energy.
Walks                         The  Dogs need exercise; a daily walk.                     They walk all day, every day
precaudal gland                         non-functional                     Wolves have this caudal mark/scent gland (a dark spot positioned approx. 3-4 inches down from the base of the tail,) it can tend to have a bluish tinge to it with a few longer stiffer hairs that poke out of it.
Sources:  

http://www.wolfhowl.org/anatomy.php Wolf Howl is particularly interesting.     

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Dog_vs_Wolf
http://yamnuskawolfdogsanctuary.com/resources/wolf-to-woof/physical-differences-between-wolves-and-dogs/
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30733
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution


The sense of smell is a Wolf's most developed sense and greatest asset. A domestic canine's nasal cavity has about twenty-five times the number of olfactory receptors and fourteen times the scent receptive surface area of a human being. It has been suggested by experts that a Wolf may have twelve times the ability to detect odors of a domestic canine and a hundred times that ability of a human being.

Hearing is a Wolf's second most developed sense. It is thought that domestic canines can hear sixteen times better than human beings. It is supposed that a Wolf's ability to hear is even better than this. Experts believe that Wolves may be able to hear frequencies far above the limits of human beings. The upper limit of human hearing is about 20 kHz, a Wolf's upper limit has been estimated at between 25 and 80 kHz. Wolves have been known to react to imitated Wolf howls from five kilometers (three miles) away. Some experts say that a Wolf can hear ten to sixteen kilometers (six to ten miles), depending on the density of trees and other obstacles between them and the source of the sound.

http://www.wolfhowl.org/anatomy.php



The wolf is genetically superior to any and all dog breeds BECAUSE dogs are victims of degraded DNA CAUSED by accelerated Selection pressures through the artificial narrowing of the gene pool. Humans, because of opportunistic greed and ignorance, created multiple artificial islands (see founder effect) of genes where dog/wolves that would otherwise normally preserve enough diversity to overcome a host of RECESSIVE genetic disorders, instead began to express them in their degraded, inbred genes (they were not allowed to breed with different looking dogs    AND a single stud dog, that was considered "ideal", narrowed the gene pool further by inseminating many more bit ches than it would've normally inseminated in a natural setting.    This irrational and unscientific inverted view of the most efficient method of propagating "good genes" (see Darwin inspired racism and eugenics ;)) continues today among breeders.    >:(

The same stupidity (see Darwin inspired racism and eugenics ;)) is used to justify humans not intermarrying with "other races". So it goes.  >:(

Degraded DNA is the unavoidable effect of Natural Selection. All creatures are gradually experiencing degradation of DNA.

Evolutionists refuse to accept this because, if they did, they would be forced to accept the FACT that, Natural Selection being a SUBTRACTIVE force,  simple life could not have 'evolved' from non-living proto-proteins AND ALL life forms, simple or complex, did not, and do not, 'evolve' into complex ones (i.e. SOMEBODY created ALL life.  :o  ;D). The clock of life, like that of this universe, is winding DOWN, not UP.

I cannot prove that ALL life forms are experiencing DNA degradation from Natural Selection. But the example of what 150 years of dog selective breeding did through the RAPID DNA degrading mechanism inherent in the narrowing the gene pool of the wolf/dog to produce "pure" (crap) breeds for mankind's profit and ease is prima facie evidence that Natural Selection is a DNA subtractive mechanism, NOT an additive one.

Quote
pri·ma fa·ci·e ˌprīmə ˈfāSHē/ adjective & adverb Law adjective: prima facie; adverb: prima facie
based on the first impression; accepted as correct until proved otherwise.


The offense rests.

Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30733
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #95 on: March 12, 2015, 04:07:45 pm »
My latest Googling says Dogs were Domesticated between ~30K and 9K years ago.

Quote
Domestic dogs evolved from a group of wolves that came into contact with European hunter-gatherers between 18,800 and 32,100 years ago and may have since died out

Quote
Dogs and wolves evolved from a common ancestor between 9,000 and 34,000 years ago, before humans transitioned to agricultural societies, according to an analysis of modern dog and wolf genomes from areas of the world thought to be centers of dog domestication.

The study, published in PLoS Genetics on January 16, 2014, also shows that dogs are more closely related to each other than wolves, regardless of geographic origin. This suggests that part of the genetic overlap observed between some modern dogs and wolves is the result of interbreeding after dog domestication, not a direct line of descent from one group of wolves.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116190137.htm?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=genomes-of-modern-dogs-and-wolves-provide-new-insights-on-domestication

Definitely though, the dogs in recent years have been used to experiment with the ideas of speciation and selection, no doubt there.

RE

And those Darwinian based "ideas" on speciation and selection were, and are, pseudo scientific baloney that caused (and STILL CAUSE) great harm to dogs and to humans (see eugenics and Hitler  :evil4:).


your Googling is the consensus. Wayne's study contradicts the consensus. Wolf "domestication" is a loaded term now because the phenotype (and genotype) barely changed for 80 to 100 thousand years. Wayne's study provided conclusive proof that the genotype (i.e. degraded DNA) began to change rapidly ONLY 150 years ago  :o (BECAUSE of the DARWINIAN BULLSHIT based huge phenotype changes forced on dogs by selective breeding), not as you believe, starting around 10,000 years ago. Darwin's theory is full of ****. This is more proof of the scientific reality that Darwinists DO NOT WANT TO FACE. Live with it.  :icon_mrgreen:

Please read his study. The consensus is WRONG. 

I'll provide the quotes for you after I exercise.  8) Wayne's study is NEW HARD SCIENTIFC DATA that contradicts the consensus view of the wolf to dog domestication time frames for phenotype AND genotype changes.

In science, as you know, OLD ERRONEOUS HABITS DIE HARD.


Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30733
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #96 on: March 12, 2015, 09:57:02 pm »
Agnotology
The Making and Unmaking of Ignorance
Edited by Robert N. Proctor and Londa Schiebinger

What don't we know, and why don't we know it? What keeps ignorance alive, or allows it to be used as a political instrument? Agnotology—the study of ignorance—provides a new theoretical perspective to broaden traditional questions about "how we know" to ask: Why don't we know what we don't know?
http://books.google.com/books?id=qp7rKT56fw0C&pg=PA1&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false

Great find, AG. Looks like a must read.
 


Surly,
Thank you. I believe Agnotology is part and parcel of every single criminal act involving the BURYING of all evidence that challenges, questions or otherwise refutes any of the "sacred" tenets of SET.

These are my dots.
1. 1870 Kennel Clubs and the concept of "pure" blood lines.
2. 1900 Eugenics is embraced by the elite (for the same "pure" blood line DARWINIAN reasons.
3. 1910-1930 "science" based genocide in Australia and Africa by the "white" man.
4. 1933-1945 Hitler kills (for science) the Jews, mentally ill non-Jew Germans and starts DARWINIAN "pure" bloodline experiment (INbreeding "Arian" girls with "Arian" men).
5. 1900-1960 Many women and men prevented from reproducing in the USA according DARWINIAN ERRONEOUS beliefs about genes and inherited disorders. Only after the year 2000 did states like Vermont begin to apologize. And I'm not sure  they mean it.
6. 1930-2015 U.S. Army and medical establishment experiments on people (without their knowledge) and animals based on 'evolutionary' principles of genetics JUSTIFYING the use of 'animal models'.

ALL this alleged "science" is based on the mechanistic reductionist model of life that, because we are allegedly just a biochemical machine, EXCLUDES respect for life. The spiritual activity evidenced on a DAILY BASIS, some of which makes the news (see the drowned lady who's spirit called people to save her daughter), and most which DOES NOT (see Agnotology in the service of SET  ) is brushed aside as "unexplained" phenomenon.

The bible says that Adam was NOT alive, even though he was fully created. God had to BREATHE life into him.  The Egyptians had the ankh, which stands for BREATH OF LIFE.  Science does not wish to accept that EVERY life form needs more than biochemistry to be alive.

Spirit animated life is a TESTAMENT to a 24/7 creative force that many here cannot accept. Yet I am convinced that NO spirit = NO LIFE, PERIOD (including bacteria  ;D).

Science will not accept that, no matter how much evidence for it exists, simply because they cannot CONTROL the spirit in their Dr. Strangelove laboratories.

Science, because it so limited, CANNOT explain the following REALITY:



Here's a very positive reaction from an atheist doomer (who I was trying to convince to NOT commit suicide) upon reading about an atheist near death experience. I deleted his name but the quote, the date and the smileys he inserted are accurate.: ENJOY!   


Quote
Sent to: agelbert  on: July 10, 2012
Re:Reasons not to check out
Agelbert, thank you for taking the time to write to me.  You've done a good thing pointing out the reasons I should stick around.  If you're willing to share, I'd like to hear your story about the "other side."

I read about the biker and then I followed the link to the website.  Something that immediately caught my eye was the date the article was published.  Oddly enough, that's my birth date!   

Wow did that ever add to the significance for me, so again, I thank you friend!  ;D


I cried like a baby when I read that. Of course I told him about my full near death experience as well. But that BIRTH DATE was what convinced him to not check out! And that particular NDE is the one I felt MOVED to offer him after praying for him. I had no idea what his birth date was.

Considering I researched NDEs for less than 8 hours before sending him that one, the odds were ASTRONOMICALLY IMPOSSIBLE that I could have selected his birth date randomly. There's a LOT MORE going on with us than biochemistry, Surly.



« Last Edit: March 13, 2015, 12:49:26 am by AGelbert »
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30733
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #97 on: March 14, 2015, 05:48:25 pm »
Ashvin said,
Quote
I like the idea that I believe you proposed before - that physical objects as we perceive them are useful icons for a more complicated reality of thoughts and processes.

   Me too.  Isn't that part of Plato's thoughts about the perfect form versus what we perceive?

Quote
It is God's way of providing us with a "software platform" which allows us to interact with our environment and with Him, without getting overwhelmed by the complexity of it all.



I think where humans get sidetracked is on God's MOTIVE in creating Homo SAPS.

This forum has a rather difficult time getting to some agreement that God exists at all, never mind His motive for creating us.  :(

But if we COULD get to the MOTIVE, it would clear up the FACT that we do not have. or ever will have (while our spirit resides in a physical body) the ability to truly understand God.

However, we can, as RE has done (and I think Aristotle and Plato did as well), conclude that the complexity and marvelous repetition of extremely efficient and beautiful designs in nature bespeaks of a MEGA intelligence responsible for all of it.

The fact that we are here, as Aquinas postulated, is sufficient evidence for a PROVIDENTIAL God. But, sadly, that is not enough for many Homo SAPS. They want the big dog to give them an explanation for all the bad stuff that goes on. Otherwise, they assume it's a random bunch of chemicals playing biochemical pinball.

I consider that a very arrogant and egotistical posture. Just BECAUSE we are self aware, it certainly does not mean everything God does has to be "logical" or even "good" or "bad" from our thoroughly limited data base.

A mosquito has far more moving parts and is infinitely more complex, as well as being totally biosphere friendly than the 100,000 plus parts B747. The B747 is a piece of DEAD, UNSUSTAINABLE, POLLUTING JUNK compared with a mosquito. Why TF can't these arrogant folks who sniff at a creator God use some no-brainner perspective about how incredibly IGNORANT and CRUDE mankind's technology  is compared with the bio-machines God created?

My only answer to that is the scientific community's 24/7 agnotology. That is, they lowball the complexity of living organisms and inflate, out of all proportion, GMO or other tehcnological tiny microscopic droplet sized incursions into a veritable OCEAN of biosphere complexity. But scientists have their  "priesthood" to defend so the sales pitch (we will solve ALL HUMAN PROBLEMS - just wait and see... ) continues.   

IF they had solved more than 0.0000000001 % (I'm being conservative - the number is probably a lot lower!) of problems dealing with cause and effect in biochemistry from the micro to the macro level, to the point that they COULD assemble living bacteria from chemicals in the lab, never mind more complex organisms, I would give them credit for having a logical a basis for their celebration of replacing the God "superstition" with "science".

But they can't create the simplest life! And what they have done in the lab with GMOs is DEFINITELY not random! It can be argued that the GMO stuff is UNintelliigent design, but it is NOT random.

In fact, many of the so-called "advancements" in science in the 20th century made everything WORSE! But don't tell that to the Palloys and McCaffertys! They will ridicule you or be highly offended at your "silly" premises. LOL!


Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30733
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #98 on: March 14, 2015, 06:54:48 pm »
A frustrating basic pitfall:
The philosophers' final downfall.
They try and they try
But they can't reason why
The real world should make sense at all.

The latest ploy of "evolution deniers" is the notion of "Intelligent Design", being promoted as a "scientific theory" worthy of (a) replacing the theory of evolution, and (b) sitting alongside Newton's mechanics as one of the great ideas of science.

It has a few problems.

The Intelligent Design (ID) argument doesn't qualify as a proper scientific theory.
The ID argument has the trappings of a logical argument, but it is full of logical gaps and holes. It is "pseudo-logic".   

There is a lot more to read on this web page if one so desires......  ::)


https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/empty.htm

Knarf,
Wrong thread. This thread is about the EXISTENCE, OR NOT, of God, not about evolution. Many evolutionists DO believe that God created this universe and uses evolution as his pet mechanism. Consequently, you are out of line bringing the "evolution denier" pejorative term into this discussion, pal.

But you never tire of trying to trash Intelligent Design, do you? How DESIGNING of you. 

If Knarf was a paramecium shaped, Chlorophyll based alien life form visiting this planet, this is the "logic" he would apply to Mt. Rushmore:   
 

Here Knark, just for YOU!   

Demarcation argument (Intelligent Design is not Science) take down  :emthup:

SNIPPET:

The use by evolutionary biologists of so-called demarcation arguments—that is, arguments that purport to distinguish science from pseudoscience, metaphysics or religion—is both ironic and problematic from the point of view of philosophy of science. It is ironic because many of the demarcation criteria that have been used against non-naturalistic theories of origin can be deployed with equal warrant against strictly naturalistic evolutionary theories. Indeed, a corpus of literature now exists devoted to assessing whether neo-Darwinism, with its distinctively probabilistic and historical dimensions, is scientific when measured against various conceptions of science.9 Some have wondered whether the use of narrative explanation in evolutionary biology constitutes a departure from a strict reliance upon natural law. Others have asked whether neo-Darwinism is falsifiable, or whether it makes true or risky predictions. In 1974, Sir Karl Popper declared neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory "untestable" and classified it as a "metaphysical research programme." While he later revised his judgment, he did so only after liberalizing his notion of falsifiability to allow the weaker notion of "falsifiability in principle" to count as a token of scientific status.

The use of demarcation arguments to settle the origins controversy is also problematic because the whole enterprise of demarcation has now fallen into disrepute. Attempts to locate methodological "invariants" that provide a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for distinguishing true science from pseudoscience have failed.10 Most philosophers of science now recognize that neither verifiability, nor testability (nor falsifiability), nor the use of lawlike explanation (nor any other criterion) can suffice to define scientific practice. As Laudan puts it, "If we could stand up on the side of reason, we ought to drop terms like ‘pseudo-science’…they do only emotive work for us."11

 Nevertheless, philosophical arguments about what does or does not constitute science continue to play a vital role in persuading biologists that alternative scientific explanations do not and (in the case of nonnaturalistic or nonmaterialistic explanations)  can not exist for the origin of biological form and structure. Indeed, demarcation criteria continue to be cited by modern biologists as reasons for disregarding the possibility of intelligent design as a theory of biological origins.12


If you aren't too bored by this topic, read the full enchilada at the link below. 

The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design:
The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories1

Stephen C. Meyer
Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe (Ignatius Press)
December 1, 2002

http://www.discovery.org/a/1780
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30733
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #99 on: March 14, 2015, 11:00:58 pm »
"The cell is NOTHING like ANY complexity we have EVER encountered in the physical world."  :o   ;D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wmhiq25MqU&feature=player_embedded
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30733
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #100 on: March 14, 2015, 11:59:43 pm »
The mind boggling complexity of the cell is MORE PROOF that God exits. WHY? Because the scientific community that made the OBSERVATIONS through advancements in technology that enabled them to view, in detail, and measure, in detail, WHAT GOES ON inside a cell WERE/ARE MOSTLY ATHEISTS! They were EXPECTING to "prove" the Darwinian SET principles in the cell! They were the OBSERVERS! Yet they were NOT pleased or happy with what they OBSERVED because the OBSERVED phenomenon CONTRADICTED SET!!

So HOW, if the "observer" influences the "reality observed", did these atheist Darwinian true believers SEE complexity "Beyond anything previously encountered by the scientific community in the physical world"? 

Because God exists and HE is the one in the microscopic/thermodynamic/quantum DETAILS.   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VezMuPgiYr4&feature=player_embedded

I am a Christian but I agree 100% with this Islam video on creation and cell complexity. The cell is blown up to mother space ship size with all the activity simplified as if it was a hive of multiple space ships performing tasks inside. Very cool!    

« Last Edit: March 15, 2015, 05:35:07 pm by AGelbert »
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30733
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #101 on: March 15, 2015, 12:54:57 am »
Hello again!

Something was born in a humanoid mind about 100,000 years ago. When it was born, it was its first appearance in the known universe, and the place it was born could only have been a humanoid mind. It would go on to define humanity, but first it had to get out of that mind.

Now we don't know what this thing that has just been born into the universe is going to grow into yet, because it has only just been conceived, but we do know it is an object - it exists. Its difference to anything else in the universe and indeed that human mind, came from its own objectivity and was the first instant of time of its existence. Now that it exists, it can start making its way to the edge of the mind where it can be released.

That thing was "meaning" - and that individual projected meaning onto something and that something was the subject. So we've now got objective meaning in the human mind and whatever that human projected meaning onto had subjective meaning. It was more than the sum of its parts - it was a new way of being. Something could now have meaning.

That human wasn't alone. They were with their brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, parents and children etc etc. They now had to get not just that subjective meaning they had projected onto something, they had to get objective meaning into the minds of the others in the group. Obviously that succeeded, but it wasn't difficult to transmit because they all had conscious human minds too. Even though we don't know who that human was, or what that first thing they projected meaning onto was, we know of no other occurrences of this in life or the rest of existence.

Those people with their new way of being now had to stand the test of time, the nature of life on Earth and the violence of the universe. The first big test was the Toba eruption 70,000 years ago which reduced the human population to 1000 to 10,000 breeding pairs. The conjecture I make is that those people wouldn't have survived and go on to outlast other hominids, such as neanderthals, if they didn't have meaning.

Spiritually speaking now, when this thing called meaning was born, God's knowledge of it was instantaneous. Before that God never had meaning, life never had meaning and existence never had meaning. Standing the test of existence, meaning increased God's stature. It changed God, and now He could observe something as having a meaning above just its existence.

This is how it stands now. When someone at the Federal Reserve hits 'enter' on a keyboard to start printing electronic money, God knows the meaning of each electron as it travels down the fiber-optic cable to the big banks to buy their worthless assets. He knows if this meant people got laid off from work because of this debt burdening, or if people couldn't afford food because of it. He knows that meaning can cause misery and even death, as well as survival. That person that hit enter, judged themselves instantaneously by what meaning they'd brought into the world - and they brought misery.

We - if there is a 'we' - are getting all our poor judgements of meaning reflecting back on us now. Humanity is simply not going to endure because of this. God doesn't judge us, we judge ourselves - our judgement is immediate and final.


Joseph,
That is an interesting hypothesis. However, physicists have difficulties accepting the part a bout God not having any "meaning" prior to "meaning" (or perhaps awareness?) some 70,000 years ago. 

WHY?

According to these scientists, our pixelated, quantum, spooky action universe has all the characteristics of virtual reality and fails the test, by various experiments they have performed, of being a physically real universe!

I know. that is WEIRD (but not to a monist! ;)). What's more, they claim NO PHYSICAL UNIVERSE has the energy to make a virtual reality one! So whoever is ultimately GENERATING this (or these) "virtual reality universe(s)" CANNOT be from a PHYSICAL UNIVERSE!


Now it gets REALLY good.
  They claim that, uh, see below while you play the Twilight zone music.   


All I can say is, that sure is a strange way to prove God exists and has a mind that has thought us up. I agree that God exists and created the whole video game universe ex nihilo, However, I resent being called a video game character!
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30733
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #102 on: March 15, 2015, 04:00:46 pm »
Quote
Meaning only allows Homo Saps to become AWARE of the Universe, it does not imply the Universe Existed or did not Exist before Homo Saps became aware of it.

To make an analogy with a child being born, prior to the birth of that child, does the Universe of that child exist? Sure, the mother existed before, everything around her existed before the child was born, but from the POV of child since it wasn't born yet the Universe did not exist.

Some folks believe that when the last Homo Sap goes Extinct, the Universe will pop back OUT of Existence, because there are no sentient observers of said Universe. Maybe, but I doubt it. There is no requirement that Observation is done for Existence to be present.    Observation is only required for MEASUREMENT of Existence. Things could still exist in the absence of Sentience, but they couldn't be measured.

RE

Let me add some Agelbert style emphasis to your excellent assertions.

Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30733
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #103 on: March 15, 2015, 04:43:14 pm »
Agelbert NOTE About J.C.s Homo SAP physical appearance: Yes, we Homo SAPS tend to picture our God(s) in the most hyped and glorified appearance possible according to our own provincial, narrow, racist, 'take car o' yer own' (and so on) prejudices. 

BUT, trhe Judeo Christian Bible, according to the prophet Isaiah, stated that J. C. was UGLY, as well as POOR and not particularly popular either.
Quote

Isaiah 53:2
He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

No one really has a literal view of Scripture, no matter where on the spectrum one falls, every interpretation must allow for figurative language. But in the above case, I believe the only interpretation that is logical is the literal one. OF course ;), the fact that J.C. did not show up for centuries after Isaiah's prophecies is a (rather tawdry, but they'll use it anyway  ) excuse that God did NOT reveal the future to Isaiah because, uh, God doesn't exist and Isaiah was smokin' some great stuff!     .

Yes Ashvin, that passage has been interpreted (wrongly, I think  :() as a reference to what J.C. looked like when he was being punched, whipped, poked and beaten to a pulp. I disagree. I think that passage, just because it is linked prophetically to the crucifixion, is NOT a justification for claiming the Lamb of God (i.e. perfect  PHYSICALLY unblemished and SPIRITUALLY sinless specimen of Homo SAPdom) looked like Michelangelo's handsome side kick.

I agree that the Shroud of Turin is an extremely accurate representation of J.C. (i.e. a run of the mill Jew). There was nothing special in J.C.'s appearance.
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30733
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #104 on: March 15, 2015, 05:38:49 pm »
The mind boggling complexity of the cell is MORE PROOF that God exits.

WHY?  ???

Because the scientific community that made the OBSERVATIONS through advancements in technology that enabled them to view, in detail, and measure, in detail, WHAT GOES ON inside a cell WERE/ARE MOSTLY ATHEISTS! They were EXPECTING to "prove" the Darwinian SET principles in the cell! They were the OBSERVERS! Yet they were NOT pleased or happy with what they OBSERVED because the OBSERVED phenomenon CONTRADICTED SET!!

So HOW, if the "observer" influences the "reality observed", did these atheist Darwinian true believers SEE complexity "Beyond anything previously encountered by the scientific community in the physical world"? 

Because God exists and HE is the one in the microscopic/thermodynamic/quantum DETAILS.   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VezMuPgiYr4&feature=player_embedded

I am a Christian but I agree 100% with this Islam video on creation and cell complexity. The cell is blown up to mother space ship size with all the activity simplified as if it was a hive of multiple space ships performing tasks inside. Very cool!    

Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

 

+-Recent Topics

🌟 IMPEACHMENT SCORE 🌠 by AGelbert
October 17, 2019, 07:37:53 pm

Profiles in Courage by AGelbert
October 17, 2019, 03:59:58 pm

Doomstead Diner Daily by Surly1
October 17, 2019, 07:56:12 am

Money by AGelbert
October 16, 2019, 09:37:30 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
October 16, 2019, 09:09:00 pm

Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field by AGelbert
October 16, 2019, 08:53:35 pm

Welcome! by AGelbert
October 16, 2019, 04:48:34 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
October 16, 2019, 04:36:28 pm

Pollution by AGelbert
October 16, 2019, 02:45:34 pm

The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth by AGelbert
October 16, 2019, 01:57:36 pm