Right Divider
Body part
Your constantly insulting the Creator as a "non-designer" is both disgusting and down right blasphemous.
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Bacterial resistance to antibiotics- what is the Creationist explanation?
- Thread starter chair
- Start date
Right Divider
Body part
Can a chihuahua ever give birth to a Saint Bernard or a Great Dane?
An example of the way evolution increases genetic diversity:
Hawaiian Drosophila species known nowhere else in the world, evolved from a few insects that managed to reach the islands. The genes for wing veination are known in Drosophila,and the genetic diversity of the wings are shown to have evolved by relatively simple steps from the basic genes of the founder population.
This is a small sample of a much greater variation. The diagram shows (for this particular group) how genes diversified.
Hawaiian Drosophila species known nowhere else in the world, evolved from a few insects that managed to reach the islands. The genes for wing veination are known in Drosophila,and the genetic diversity of the wings are shown to have evolved by relatively simple steps from the basic genes of the founder population.
This is a small sample of a much greater variation. The diagram shows (for this particular group) how genes diversified.
Also, genetic diversity can increase in bacteria the same way it increases in vertebrates. Sexual recombination occurs though conjugation of bacteria. In some cases, different species can exchange genetic material. This is how the "nylon gene" so quickly spread into bacterial populations.
Contrary to early reports, the mutation did not appear only after nylon was invented; evidence from various natural populations shows that the mutation occurs from natural homologues, and not as a special response to available nylon (confirming the work of Luria and Delbruck which showed that mutations appear randomly, and not in response to need).
Initially, it was thought to have been an entirely new gene, produced by a frameshift mutation, but subsequent works has shown that it evolved by mutation of existing genes. Where nylon oligomer was present (such as in waste ponds of nylon factories) the gene spread rapidly by natural selection, aided by conjugation.
Contrary to early reports, the mutation did not appear only after nylon was invented; evidence from various natural populations shows that the mutation occurs from natural homologues, and not as a special response to available nylon (confirming the work of Luria and Delbruck which showed that mutations appear randomly, and not in response to need).
Initially, it was thought to have been an entirely new gene, produced by a frameshift mutation, but subsequent works has shown that it evolved by mutation of existing genes. Where nylon oligomer was present (such as in waste ponds of nylon factories) the gene spread rapidly by natural selection, aided by conjugation.
No, and nobody is saying that they did or could. Nor is anybody saying that wolf gave birth to a Saint Bernard or a Great Dane. It might be an idea to learn something about the theory of evolution first, then attack it.
Right Divider
Body part
I guess that you cannot understand the point that I'm making....
Chihuahuas, Saint Bernards and Great Danes are all descended from a common "dog" ancestor and they all have less genetic diversity than that common "dog" ancestor. The common "dog"ancestor had the genetics of ALL of those breeds. Now those breeds are dramatically less diverse.
I keep hearing this, but I have yet to see evidence that it is the case.
For one, you've ignored the fact that the larger population of all dog breeds together have far more genetic diversity than the original dog-ancestor. Not less. As far as breeding new breeds, humans are still breeding different strains of plants and animals to this day, and I haven't heard any breeders complaining that "we just don't have the genetic diversity we need".
Another fact: modern dog breeds were largely developed in Victorian times. Roughly 100-150 years ago. How did they manage that?
Evidence for this supposed drop in genetic diversity? Where's the evidence?
Right Divider
Body part
Some forms of blindness can be cured.
Nope.... the original "dog" kind had ALL the genetic diversity of ALL of the present breeds.
Breeders SELECT certain traits and THEREFORE eliminate others. i.e., LESS diversify.
What supposed problem is there?
Some forms of blindness can be cured.
See post #89. Evolution generally shows an increase in diversity where there are multiple lines diverging from a single population.
This is a complete mystery to creationists, but is a prediction of evolutionary theory.
Right Divider
Body part
Repeating false claims... one of the evolutionists favorite hobbies.
Do you think zebras could produce all the horses?
Wait. I claim that an ancestor population produced zebras. That's a fact. I also claim that zebras could not produce the ancestor population.
This second claim is something you assert. You show the evidence.
This is your claim. Prove it.
I'm fairly comfortable with what I believe without necessarily being able to "prove" it. Moreover, it's notoriously difficult to "prove" a negative. And given that all I sought to do was answer your question of how I define "genetic integrity," I find myself under no obligation whatsoever.
Did you care about what I meant when you asked for the definition?
"What, if anything, is a zebra?"
http://courses.ischool.utexas.edu/Le...ould_zebra.pdf
The text includes one error since cleared up by genetic analysis. Can you find it? (the error is not about zebras, BTW)
http://courses.ischool.utexas.edu/Le...ould_zebra.pdf
The text includes one error since cleared up by genetic analysis. Can you find it? (the error is not about zebras, BTW)
Last edited:
You made a negative claim, based on your religious belief. But it has no scientific basis. I just wanted that to be clear. You may feel comfortable with that, but others reading this thread might not.
It is more honest to admit that your beliefs do not match current scientific understanding, and yet you stick to your beliefs, than to pretend you've found a whole bunch of flaws in the science.
I guess you think this is somehow relevant.
So you didn't care.
Sounds like you care a whole lot about perceptions and not at all about evidence.
I have been insisting that you provide evidence for your claims. You avoid providing evidence, and then attempt to turn the game around, as you always do. This has nothing to do with perceptions. It has to do with facts.