The Origin of Novelty

We're crossing messages in flight. Sorry.What is a "true-bred line" in, let's say, bovines? What does it look like? What alleles does it have?

I just laid it out sufficiently. Have at it.

No, more types of alleles would be an increase in genetic diversity, which is what evolution would need if it were true, but in order to get a new breed, which is called microevolution by some, you have to GET RID of alleles that don't contribute to the characteristics of that breed, so you are reducing the genetic diversity for that breed.To maintain a Hereford you must keep Black Angus and Texas Longhorn and Limousin genes out of the mix, to get a chihuahua you have to keep Great Dane, St. Bernard, golden retriever, black lab, Yorkshire terrier and etc. genes-- meaning alleles of course -- out of the mix. You know. If you don't you get a mutt.This is really elementary, my dear Watson, but it can be difficult for those who are used to the idiocies of evolutionary reasoning. It doesn't. See above.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

All right. The argument, then, is that artificially selected breeds are produced by reductions in the gene pool relative to the rest of the species, therefore evolution is false. As written it is a massive non-sequitur with no explanation connecting the premise to the conclusion. Since you claim that you have laid it out sufficiently - which is not possible if you have left out the essential reasoning - there is no more that needs to be said.

The same is true for naturally selected variations in nature.

Faith,Do you now understand why it makes a difference if someone is claiming we are more related to chimps based on homology or based on dna evidence? Go back and read my post #240.This thread is about how novel functions develop. The evidence given for RM/NS causing new novel appearances is claimed to be the fact that we see such close relations of nested hierarchies, so of course they are just a few mutations separating something that looks like a monkey, to something that looks like a human. The tree of life is full of examples of one animal seamless blending into another. Except it isn't.Let's try to stick to that topic in this thread ok?You have given Dr. A and Drosphilia and Azpaul too many excuses to avoid confronting these dilemmas.

Faith, please let me handle the moderation. If you have an issue or complaint then please post it to Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0(NOT A DISCUSSION TOPIC!!!)[/color].

If so I'm happy to exit this thread, Bolder, but no I don't get the argument. Perhaps i haven't spent enough time on it. I don't really care, though, since everything about the ToE is delusional.

Except the distribution of endogenous retroviruses within the great apes belies the Grehan-Schwartz study but, of course, you did not bother to research whether that study was definitive. You found the words you were looking for and jumped on that shit bag with both of your left feet splattering crap all over your face.I would give reason why you would do this but in deference to Percy I'll stop here.

If your argument against evolution is that it works exactly as science says, you don't have much of an argument. So, please stop messing around and present your actual argument. At this point I don't even know which variant of your argument you are trying to present.

And you have to replace those alleles with other, new, alleles to make the new breed. You just cannot yank out one set of alleles without replacing it with a set of alleles that perform the same function though with a different phenotypic sub-trait.The hereford alleles make a hereford. To make an angus you have to yank out the hereford alleles and replace them with the angus alleles.To make some totally new breed of bovine from a hereford you have to yank out the hereford alleles and replace them with a totally new set of alleles that will make the characteristics of the new breed.So, again, how would this decrease genetic diversity?Edited by AZPaul3, : usual

How does the distribution of retroviruses belie their study?Perhaps you could explain yourself?Their study is about the homological similarities between humans and orangutans, not about the molecular gaps between chimps and humans. Do retroviruses explain the unique shared physical features of Orangutans and humans? What **** are you talking about exactly?

Are you actually going to claim that retroviruses account for all of the inconsistencies in the Dna and homology trees of life?

Look it up.

No you don't have to replace any alleles, they're all built in to the species, all you have to do is subtract in order to get a new breed. You've got some very strange misapprehension of what I'm trying to say, of course based on your evolutionist assumptions which are false. But since I've been told this is not on topic for this thread I won't try to answer you here.We could resurrect the Rabbit Trail thread for the purpose if you want or start a new thread, but I've been up all night and have to get some sleep so I have to leave now anyway.Same to the other Paul.Good night.