Jose Fly
New member
And there's the admission that even though they like to go on and on about decreases, increases, and relative amounts of "genetic information", they really have no idea how to measure it.
-
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.
Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?
- Thread starter Clete
- Start date
Doubling down on your stupidity wasn't the way to go. :nono:
Random changes are always bad for information.
There you go, a measurement technique.
Stupid Darwinist.
No, that's hilariously wrong. The mutations that make a dachshund don't exist in any wolf. The mutations for short legs are for a kind of achondroplasia.
All cases of stunted legs in domestic dogs are the result of a single genetic event that took place early on in their evolution. Some time ago, a gene called FGF4 (short for fibroblast growth factor 4), which plays an important role in bone growth, was copied and reinserted into a new site in the dog genome. It’s this extra errant copy – a retrogene – that has retarded the growth of so many domestic breeds.
http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketsc...-that-gave-dachshunds-and-corgis-their-short/
We know precisely what the mutation was, and when it occurred. And it's not present in wolves. You have no idea what you're talking about. The short legs are ideal for the prey for which they were bred. "Dachshund" means "badger dog." Their job was to chase a badger down his hole, and drag him out. The standard dachshund is, not surprisingly, aggressive and crazy brave.
In hunting, the dogs accompanied the foresters until burrowing prey, such as badgers, were spotted. When the prey went underground, one or more dachshunds were sent in after them, often down the multiple entrances of underground burrows.
As a dachshund owner I can testify to the aggression and fearlessness of dachshunds. They will attack other, and much larger animals on sight if permitted. I have seen an otherwise mild-mannered pet dachshund go after a weimaraner three times his size and chase off the larger dog.
In the burrow, the short-haired dachshund is well adapted to close-in fighting. His teeth are sharp and are located at the very front of a long muzzle. Jaws are powerful and deliver an immobilizing bite that keeps the prey far from the dachshund's vulnerable torso. Neck is corded with muscle for staying power.
https://www.quora.com/How-were-dachshunds-wiener-dogs-used-to-hunt-badgers
As I said, you don't know what you're talking about. A canid has only two alleles for each gene locus. Because this mutation is dominant, if a wolf had even one copy of it, the wolf would be short-legged like a dachshund.
We can test that idea. In fact, it's been tested. Fuel efficiency of diesel engines is really important. But the numerous factors affecting efficiency make it really hard to design.
So engineers use genetic algorithms. They copy Darwinian evolution seen in nature.
They let a computer simulation of an engine randomly vary different factors. Those random mutations that make it less efficient are removed, and only a few of the mutations that most improved efficiency are retained for the next round.
Then each of those again goes through many random changes, and again, only the best are retained.
After many iterations, the engineers had a much more efficient engine. The new information was then used to build better diesels.
https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/2003-01-1853/
God's smarter than you think He is, Stipe.
No, that's hilariously wrong. The mutations that make a dachshund don't exist in any wolf. The mutations for short legs are for a kind of achondroplasia.
As I said, you don't know what you're talking about. A canid has only two alleles for each gene locus. Because this mutation is dominant, if a wolf had even one copy of it, the wolf would be short-legged like a dachshund.
That's middle-school genetics. The allele responsible for short legs in dogs is well-known, and never existed in wolves. Since it's a dominant gene, one copy would result in short-legged wolves. C'mon.
You said something extraordinarily ignorant. Learn from it.
If you trusted the Gospel as it is, instead of your revised version, you wouldn't be in this position.
(Bunny trail attempt deleted)
As I said, you don't know what you're talking about. A canid has only two alleles for each gene locus. Because this mutation is dominant, if a wolf had even one copy of it, the wolf would be short-legged like a dachshund.
That's middle-school genetics. The allele responsible for short legs in dogs is well-known, and never existed in wolves. Since it's a dominant gene, one copy would result in short-legged wolves. C'mon.
You said something extraordinarily ignorant. Learn from it.
If you trusted the Gospel as it is, instead of your revised version, you wouldn't be in this position.
(Bunny trail attempt deleted)
6days
New member
Perhaps in the 60's they taught that in middle school. Science has progressed.Barbarian said:
ARE you still claiming that we don't have even "100 harmful mutations, slightly, or otherwise"?
Sheesh... you believe 'fish' evolved legs ...but reject that mutant dogs can 'evolve' from a wolf?Barbarian said:
...as it is...Rom. 5:12 "When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam's sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned."... keep reading. I don't need to explain it I wait. I accept it as it is.Barbarian said:
Not without respecting the conversation, which you don't.
Random mutations are always bad for information. Telling stories about people designing things is no counter.
Stupid Darwinists.
Barbarian observes:
We can test that idea. In fact, it's been tested. Fuel efficiency of diesel engines is really important. But the numerous factors affecting efficiency make it really hard to design.
So engineers use genetic algorithms. They copy Darwinian evolution seen in nature.
They let a computer simulation of an engine randomly vary different factors. Those random mutations that make it less efficient are removed, and only a few of the mutations that most improved efficiency are retained for the next round.
Then each of those again goes through many random changes, and again, only the best are retained.
After many iterations, the engineers had a much more efficient engine. The new information was then used to build better diesels.
https://www.sae.org/publications/tec.../2003-01-1853/
God's smarter than you think He is, Stipe.
That's the beauty of it, Stipe. They didn't design anything. They copied God's method. They just let random changes go through a process of natural selection, and they got their more efficient engine. And it wouldn't have been possible by design.
God's a lot smarter than you think.
Smart God. And that's why His way works better than design.
A lot of your difficulty comes because you can't figure out what "information" is. You don't even know how to figure out how much information is there.
Why not spend a little time learning about it, and come back when you know what it is?
Greg Jennings
New member
Greg Jennings
New member
:rotfl:
Says the guy who purposely dodges all questions posed to him.
Then again, that's just par for the course when it comes to YECs
6days
New member
You not only don't seem to understand genetics, but don't seem to understand how to present a logical argument.
6days
New member
6days
New member
I think you were fooled because they used the word 'genetic'. Also making it difficult is you don't understand mutations. Do you still agree with Greg that mutations gave them an extra fin because of radiation at Bikini Atoll? Do you still think each human has less than 100 deleterious mutations ( slightly or otherwise)? Do you think natural selection can remove all deleterious mutations from humans?Barbarian said:
Of course they did. They had specifications and intent, things that are not available to evolution.
Design.
6days
New member
You are silly and arguing to spite your face. If a mutation caused a shark to lose a fin... That is an effect. It's just goofy suggesting neutral mutations can cause a loss of an appendage. The article doesn't say what your teacher told you.Greg Jennings said:
Oh my.... you are confused. You may or may not see an immediate effect of a mutation ( you usually don't).... but that does not mean that the mutation is neutral.Greg Jennings said:
Here is a little crash course for you. Many perhaps most geneticists consider the near neutral (The slightly deleterious mutations) to be the worst. Selection of courses incapable of recognizing and removing over a hundred new mutations added to our genome every generation. Selection usually can't even remove the ones that are considered deleterious. These mutations accumulate to cause possible problems in the future. A couple geneticists have called it the population bomb.
EXAMPLE ... a mutation could cause one of your kidneys to stop functioning. It may have no obvious effect on you but there is not a geneticist in the world that would call that a neutral mutation.
Jose Fly
New member
What exactly do you think microsat regions do?
LOL. Questions....the creationists' kryptonite.