Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-19-2019 7:59 AM
18 online now:
Faith, Percy (Admin), Theodoric (3 members, 15 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 857,000 Year: 12,036/19,786 Month: 1,817/2,641 Week: 326/708 Day: 20/81 Hour: 4/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67
...
31NextFF
Author Topic:   WTF is wrong with people
frako
Member
Posts: 2814
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(1)
Message 61 of 457 (707724)
09-30-2013 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Faith
09-30-2013 4:24 PM


Re: Back on topic

All you did in that post was repeat the usual Evo Credo, nothing that isn't already familiar to us all.

Apparently not as you could not see that mutations can cause genetic diversity in a population with a low genetic diversety.

As for the mutations each of us possess individually, I would expect some of them to develop genetic disease.

YES by George you got 1 part of it.

By this you must also concede that most mutations would do nothing ei not be a hindrance or an advantage right.

Now take a look at the picture above the man had a mutation a clump of EXTRA genes on his X chromosome. If there wa an ice age would you consider his mutation to be beneficial? Like helping him not to freeze to death or at least adding an extra proteciton to his face.

And given this can you for 5 seconds imagine that his better chance to survive however small increases his chance to have children compared to other people. And His children also bearing the same mutation the same extra genes on their X chromosome would also have a better chance of surviving hence having children of their own with the same mutation.

And that is evolution.

Mutations ARE mistakes, as you say, mistakes in the replication of the genome, and also in the bigger sense that they are some kind of disease process in themselves, not part of the normal functioning of the genome.

Yes mutations are RANDOM mistakes coupled with NOT-RANDOM natural selection you have evolution.

Given the enviorment just about any mutation can be good or bad.

The picture above in the current environment is more probably a hindernece to the man to have children and even if he does his children will have the same hindrance too compared to "normal" mutants so his line will probably vanish as will the unique genetic mutation from the human gen pool. But in a different environment he could have an upper hand.

Edited by frako, : No reason given.


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

Click if you dare!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Faith, posted 09-30-2013 4:24 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
frako
Member
Posts: 2814
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(1)
Message 62 of 457 (707727)
09-30-2013 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Faith
09-30-2013 4:24 PM


Re: Back on topic
That's just part of the Evo Fantasy.

Yea and while evo fantasy is now responsible for making better planes.

http://aero.stanford.edu/reports/VKI_Evolutionary_Kroo_A.pdf

And you will see this design method being used more and more frequently.

Whyt is your fantasy of a magic man poofing everything in to existence doing apart from fighting science and promoting ignorance.

Edited by frako, : No reason given.


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

Click if you dare!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Faith, posted 09-30-2013 4:24 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Faith, posted 09-30-2013 8:15 PM frako has responded

    
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 874
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013
Member Rating: 3.5


(2)
Message 63 of 457 (707732)
09-30-2013 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Faith
09-30-2013 4:16 PM


Re: Back on topic
Faith writes:

Yeah, I enjoy needling evolutionists when I can, just as they needle me

Very Christian of you. Guess the Old Testament is your favorite?

Faith writes:

And you are off topic and committing the same violation of the rule against personal attack that Ringo was doing

You mean when I called you out for being insulting with regards your statement about Coyote's life's work being a delusion? You do know forum rules are not one-sided, right?

Faith writes:

The right thing to do with an argument is address the argument itself, but of course evolutionists suffer from an inability to do anything but make charts that demonstrate their fantasies, actual reality eludes them

LMAO! Those 'charts', amongst many other things are generally referred to in scientific parlance, as FACTS.

Maybe as a counter you can show us the engineering schematics for Noah's Ark, along with all the calculations on how it could function?
But I can understand your dislike of charts. The last one I saw produced by a Creationist was drawn in crayon.


"Our future lies not in our dogmatic past, but in our enlightened present"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Faith, posted 09-30-2013 4:16 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Faith, posted 09-30-2013 8:04 PM Diomedes has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32154
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 64 of 457 (707734)
09-30-2013 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Diomedes
09-30-2013 7:05 PM


Re: Back on topic
Golly gee those charts are referred to as FACTS! That sure does set the fantasy in concrete doesn't it?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Diomedes, posted 09-30-2013 7:05 PM Diomedes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by frako, posted 09-30-2013 8:12 PM Faith has responded
 Message 67 by Coyote, posted 09-30-2013 8:16 PM Faith has responded

    
frako
Member
Posts: 2814
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(1)
Message 65 of 457 (707735)
09-30-2013 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Faith
09-30-2013 8:04 PM


Re: Back on topic
Golly gee those charts are referred to as FACTS! That sure does set the fantasy in concrete doesn't it?

Yea and rading an aincent book from the bronze age as FACT is so much better.

The reason our charts are refereed as fact is because we take objective measurements via objective tools, and plot the data on charts.

If i measure a string wtih a measuring tool every time i measure it the measurement will be the same, if you take the same measuring tool and measure the string the measurement will be the same. The tool is objective. Now if i mesure a bunch of strings and write my findings on a chart. The chart would be factual for the strings i measured.

What is objective by your standards. How do you objectively read the bible. There are currently 21000 denominations of Christianity every single denomination reads the bible a bit differently. If you find an objective way to read it you might bring humanity back to the one holy church era.


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

Click if you dare!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Faith, posted 09-30-2013 8:04 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Faith, posted 09-30-2013 8:18 PM frako has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32154
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 66 of 457 (707736)
09-30-2013 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by frako
09-30-2013 5:10 PM


Re: Back on topic
Science makes planes.
Evo fantasy is not science.
Evo makes absolutely nothing, it just keeps people's brains in chains.

Hey that rhymes.

God taught us science, we thank God for science. Evolution is not science.

Anyway. Just a reminder that the reason this discussion got going about how varieties require reduced genetic diversity, which of course you've answered only with the usual recitations of the Evo Litany, is that your OP refuses to recognize that creationists do affirm the variations that occur under the bizarre name Microevolution, meaning that you misrepresent us. Not that you care, heavens no, NOBODY cares about misrepresenting creationists. But anyway, that's why it came up. And I'm sure you'll go on just as blind as ever about what creationists believe, restating the same old lies and putting up stupid "humor" pieces that also restate them. So much for any claim to honest Debate.

By the way I hardly ever read links or watch embedded videos, just so you know. In the case of this one I did at least find out that now they think they can improve airplanes with something they attribute to evolutionary theory. Whether whatever it is actually IS attributable to evolutionary theory, or like Microevolution, has nothing to do with it, I didn't read far enough to find out. In any case since the ToE is a gigantic delusion, oh brother and HOW gigantic, I suppose I ought to pay attention to keep track of when they either scrap it or the model they build crashes and burns.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by frako, posted 09-30-2013 5:10 PM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Coyote, posted 09-30-2013 8:25 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 71 by frako, posted 09-30-2013 8:30 PM Faith has responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 301 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 67 of 457 (707737)
09-30-2013 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Faith
09-30-2013 8:04 PM


A few definitions to help you out
Golly gee those charts are referred to as FACTS! That sure does set the fantasy in concrete doesn't it?

Science does its best to speak and write precisely, so as to avoid misunderstanding. If you are going to use scientific terms here in the Science Forum perhaps you should understand what is meant by those terms.

Here are some definitions that might help you out:

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]

When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.

Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."

Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.

Proof: A term from logic and mathematics describing an argument from premise to conclusion using strictly logical principles. In mathematics, theorems or propositions are established by logical arguments from a set of axioms, the process of establishing a theorem being called a proof.

The colloquial meaning of "proof" causes lots of problems in physics discussion and is best avoided. Since mathematics is such an important part of physics, the mathematician's meaning of proof should be the only one we use. Also, we often ask students in upper level courses to do proofs of certain theorems of mathematical physics, and we are not asking for experimental demonstration!

So, in a laboratory report, we should not say "We proved Newton's law" Rather say, "Today we demonstrated (or verified) the validity of Newton's law in the particular case of..." Source

Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."

Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process; a representation such that knowledge concerning the model offers insight about the entity modelled.

Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess.

Conjecture: speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence); guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence; reasoning that involves the formation of conclusions from incomplete evidence.

Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can be considered a fact.

Data: Individual measurements; facts, figures, pieces of information, statistics, either historical or derived by calculation, experimentation, surveys, etc.; evidence from which conclusions can be inferred.

Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not be able to play"

Impression: a vague or subjective idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying."

Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.

Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information.

Observation: any information collected with the senses.

Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source

Note: it is not necessary that you agree with the facts, but unless you can provide evidence that they are inaccurate, that's the way to bet.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Faith, posted 09-30-2013 8:04 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Faith, posted 09-30-2013 8:21 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32154
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 68 of 457 (707738)
09-30-2013 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by frako
09-30-2013 8:12 PM


Re: Back on topic
There is absolutely nothing about that chart that has any sort of objective anything to it. You are just vaporing on and on the way evos do, with your fantasy evidence and fantasy measurements of fantasy evolution.

As I've tediously explained to you over and over and over, the processes that bring about variation require reduced genetic diversity. THERE's a fact for you, an actual fact. Reduced genetic diversity over many generations of refining a breed is going to bring you to a point where no further variation is possible.

Your chart is just a big fairy tale.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by frako, posted 09-30-2013 8:12 PM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by frako, posted 09-30-2013 8:39 PM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32154
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 69 of 457 (707739)
09-30-2013 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Coyote
09-30-2013 8:16 PM


Re: A few definitions to help you out
Weird how fond you guys are of reciting the Creeds about the Methodology of *Science* as if they actually contribute anything to a particular discussion about how evolution absolutely fails by scientific standards. Just plain weird.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Coyote, posted 09-30-2013 8:16 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by frako, posted 09-30-2013 8:40 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 301 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 70 of 457 (707740)
09-30-2013 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Faith
09-30-2013 8:15 PM


Re: Back on topic
Science makes planes.
Evo fantasy is not science.
Evo makes absolutely nothing, it just keeps people's brains in chains.

Hey that rhymes.

God taught us science, we thank God for science. Evolution is not science.

Evolution: anything a creationist disagrees with.

By the way I hardly ever read links or watch embedded videos, just so you know.

Here is a great one for you to ignore then:

Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices, by Professor Garrett Odell (online lecture):

Abstract: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Faith, posted 09-30-2013 8:15 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2814
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(1)
Message 71 of 457 (707741)
09-30-2013 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Faith
09-30-2013 8:15 PM


Re: Back on topic
Science makes planes.

Um but the article in question said that evolution can and does make better planes.

Evo fantasy is not science.

Um scientists disagree

Evo makes absolutely nothing, it just keeps people's brains in chains.

I just showed you an article whre the principle of evolution was used to make a plane better so is that just you closing your eyes covering your ears screaming NANANANANA

God taught us science

Um the recognised founder of the scientific method is Aristotle, does that mean the Greeks where right and we should worship Zeus, Athena, Ares .... and all the other phantenon gods.

Anyway. Just a reminder that the reason this discussion got going about how varieties require reduced genetic diversity, which of course you've answered only with the usual recitations of the Evo Litany, is that your OP refuses to recognize that creationists do affirm the variations that occur under the bizarre name Microevolution, meaning that you misrepresent us. Not that you care, heavens no, NOBODY cares about misrepresenting creationists. But anyway, that's why it came up. And I'm sure you'll go on just as blind as ever about what creationists believe.

Yea we came full circle where we found out that micro eovlution is just a snapshot of evolution. Or evolution in a shorter framework.

By the way I hardly ever read links or watch embedded videos, just so you know. In the case of this one I did at least find out that now they think they can improve airplanes with something they attribute to evolutionary theory. Whether whatever it is actually IS attributable to evolutionary theory, or like Microevolution, has nothing to do with it, I didn't read far enough to find out. In any case since the ToE is a gigantic delusion, oh brother and HOW gigantic, I suppose I ought to pay attention to keep track of when they either scrap it or the model they build crashes and burns

We just came in to an age where computers can harness the power of evolution to design better then man can. But yea keep track you will be amazed how an idiotic non-scientific fairytale does so well.


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

Click if you dare!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Faith, posted 09-30-2013 8:15 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Faith, posted 09-30-2013 8:50 PM frako has responded

    
frako
Member
Posts: 2814
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 72 of 457 (707742)
09-30-2013 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Faith
09-30-2013 8:18 PM


Re: Back on topic
As I've tediously explained to you over and over and over, the processes that bring about variation require reduced genetic diversity. THERE's a fact for you, an actual fact. Reduced genetic diversity over many generations of refining a breed is going to bring you to a point where no further variation is possible.

Ok once again say we have the absolute lowest genetic diversity possible just 2 freaking creationodogs to start with. When these 2 creationodogs have children say 10 of them. Each of them qill have half a copy of their fathers DNA and their Mothers DNA but ALSO a few MUTATIONS that are DIFFERENT from their fathers DNA or their mothers DNA. GENETIC DIVERSITY of the population INCREASED. Each of these crationodog children will breed further and each of their children will have MUTATIONS in their GENOME further INCREASING GENETIC DIVERSITY.


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

Click if you dare!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Faith, posted 09-30-2013 8:18 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Faith, posted 09-30-2013 9:11 PM frako has responded

    
frako
Member
Posts: 2814
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(1)
Message 73 of 457 (707743)
09-30-2013 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Faith
09-30-2013 8:21 PM


Re: A few definitions to help you out
Weird how fond you guys are of reciting the Creeds about the Methodology of *Science* as if they actually contribute anything to a particular discussion about how evolution absolutely fails by scientific standards. Just plain weird.

OK cite what standards it fails and why, then also cite why creationism passes those standards.


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

Click if you dare!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Faith, posted 09-30-2013 8:21 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32154
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 74 of 457 (707744)
09-30-2013 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by frako
09-30-2013 8:30 PM


Re: Back on topic
I just showed you an article whre the principle of evolution was used to make a plane better so is that just you closing your eyes covering your ears screaming NANANANANA

Articles purporting to further some evolutionary notion or other are as the sand of the seashore, most with some kind of pretensions to be *Scientific* which usually just means slinging around the jargon. Once one knows the ToE is a gigantic delusion that has millions in chains, what's the point in slogging through another piece of word magic in its name?

God taught us science, not Aristotle.

Yea we came full circle where we found out that micro eovlution is just a snapshot of evolution. Or evolution in a shorter framework.

I guess it suits you to ignore the fact that genetic diversity prevents macroevolution, of course, I can't very well expect you to abandon your years of investiment in the Great Delusion for an actual FACT, can I?

In any case no you did NOT do any such thing as FIND OUT anything about microevolution, what a bunch of selfserving hooha that is. No, the whole edifice of the ToE was BUILT on the ASSUMPTION that microevolution is openended. The natural variations within species that have always been observed, and that can be controlled in domestic breeding, were Darwin's inspiration for the theory after all. You see variation, you ASSUME it's openended, you declare it, you assert it and that MAKES IT SO in Evospeak. I've shown you how it isn't but gosh that might destroy a hundred years of false science so NOBODY is going to pay any attention to THAT. No, we'll just go on ignoring the naked emperor and describe the perfections of his elegant finery as if they actually exist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by frako, posted 09-30-2013 8:30 PM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by frako, posted 09-30-2013 9:14 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32154
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 75 of 457 (707747)
09-30-2013 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by frako
09-30-2013 8:39 PM


Re: Back on topic

Ok once again say we have the absolute lowest genetic diversity possible just 2 freaking creationodogs to start with. When these 2 creationodogs have children say 10 of them. Each of them qill have half a copy of their fathers DNA and their Mothers DNA but ALSO a few MUTATIONS that are DIFFERENT from their fathers DNA or their mothers DNA. GENETIC DIVERSITY of the population INCREASED. Each of these crationodog children will breed further and each of their children will have MUTATIONS in their GENOME further INCREASING GENETIC DIVERSITY.

Pay attention now. If you are starting with TWO dogs you have already drastically reduced the genetic diversity from that of the dog population as a whole. Their ten offspring will have THEIR alleles but not some alleles which exist in the greater dog population, probably a great many. Again their genetic diversity is sharply smaller than that of the dog population as a whole, and their offspring will have their parents alleles and not any of the alleles that were left behind in the greater dog population, and these new alleles will come to characterize their family trait picture and in fact a whole breed if such develops from them. That is, if you go on breeding them, keeping them reproductively isolated from other dogs, their particular collection of alleles will continue to mix and create a new set of traits from them, based on their sharply reduced genetic diversity.

Of course I believe mutations are a disease process but for the sake of argument I'll assume some occur as you describe. It really wouldn't matter if mutations enter into the mix or not, a few mutations isn't going to increase the genetic diversity of this new population in any real sense, and in any case all it can do is contribute a few more alleles to the mix to create the new breed.

If you start with only two dogs you have such a drastically reduced genetic diversity -- it's called Founder Effect, which creates a more drastic genetic reduction than a Bottleneck -- that a few mutations are simply not going to make a difference. If some do occur as you so hopefully assume, they'll just be part of the allele collection of the new breed with its sharply reduced genetic diversity, possibly contribute to a trait or two at best, and most likely in reality, mutations not being so useful or beneficial, they won't have any impact at all. You'll get a new breed from the two dogs over a few generations of inbreeding, and it will have drastically reduced genetic diversity from the mother population mutations or no mutations. It MUST or it will not form an identifiable breed. If mutations kept occurring and changing things as you guys seem to think they do, you could never develop or preserve a breed at all, and that's another way evolution is defeated by the very processes of isolation, selection and so on , that supposedly fuel it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by frako, posted 09-30-2013 8:39 PM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by frako, posted 09-30-2013 9:27 PM Faith has responded

    
Prev1234
5
67
...
31NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019