Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-15-2019 2:43 PM
39 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: lopezeast0211, Theodoric
Post Volume:
Total: 856,790 Year: 11,826/19,786 Month: 1,607/2,641 Week: 116/708 Day: 50/66 Hour: 4/9


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1112
13
1415
...
31NextFF
Author Topic:   WTF is wrong with people
Faith
Member
Posts: 32133
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 181 of 457 (708012)
10-03-2013 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Tangle
10-03-2013 11:48 AM


Re: Back on topic
All this is Faith, is what we Brits call 'a statement of the bleedin' obvious.'

Yes, it IS obvious, what's not obvious is that it applies way beyond the specific bottleneck instances you want to consign it to. It's a principle that applies to ALL formations of new "species" or breeds, that's what I'm claiming, because they are all formed by the reproductive isolation of a portion of a population, whether by human intention or random geographic isolation or migration or natural selection or whatever. I'm claiming this same situation is what "speciation" is too, and that being the case you have a situation of reduced genetic diversity right where you need to have the opposite if evolution were a reality.

If 2 organisms split off from a population, become isolated but continue to breed it's bleedin' obvious that the genomes of those two will have less diversity than the genomes of the original population.

The same is the case if ten or a hundred or even more split off, depending on how large the original population was. In all these cases you are going to get reduced genetic diversity AND the formation of new phenotypes because of the new allele/gene frequencies, and when a phenotype becomes characteristic of the new population after some number of generations of inbreeding you are going to have a new genotype too, that may or may not be able to interbreed with the former population but you will have a new "look" to the new population, a new phenotype shared by the individuals in that population that is different from the look of the mother population. I'm just repeating all this of course, to head off the tendency to try to make the bottleneck situation something different from all these other situations. It's not.

No-one disagrees because we know that that creates a genetic bottleneck...

Yes, good and fine, but what you DO disagree with is my claim that ALL the ways a new breed or race or variety or "species" is formed come down to the same basic principle as the bottleneck.

...and it's one reason we know that Noah's flood did not happen 6,000 years ago - because that genetic bottleneck does not exist.

You guys really need to get on the same page about this, because I've many times argued down this very point, but then somebody will come along, as someone did earlier on this very thread, and claim that is NOT how you all expect the Flood bottleneck would show up. But leave it at just "one reason" if you like, the answer I've given many times is that according to the creationist model I have in mind, there would have been a great deal more heterozygosity in all populations of animals and humans back to Eden, that accounts for an enormously greater ability to vary and form new breeds than we see today; and the percentage of heterozygosity would still have been much greater even after the Flood in spite of the bottleneck because it was SO great originally. It would have been greatly reduced after the Flood but that would not be recognized now because there is still sufficient heterozygosity for all the variations we see today.

The current percentage of heterozygosity in the human genome has been estimated at 6.7%, which is enough for all this variety. But if it was even ten or twenty percent after the Flood that would be a great reduction from Eden's possible fity or ninety percent or whatever it was, but still a lot more than we have today and quite enough for all the variety that has developed since the Flood. In iother words what the bottleneck would have done is drastically reduce the heterozygosity of the genome.

That's what happens today but the reason it's a problem today is that it is a far less heterozygous genome that is being further reduced. So you get extremely homozygous genetic condition of the cheetah and the elephant seal today. But the genome before the Flood was heterozygous for so many more traits that the bottleneck would not have reduced it as drastically as a bottleneck today would. Therefore you don't see the signs of a bottleneck because the effects would not have been the same then as they are now, it would have greatly reduced the heterozygosity, there would have been much more homozygosity, but to nowhere near as much as we see today. Again, I said this earlier in the thread and somebody claimed this is NOT how the bottleneck would be recognized genetically. Well, many others on other threads, and now you, have affirmed that it would be. And now I've answered it again.

The point you are missing is that whilst those two individuals contain less genetic diversity than the population they came from, all other things being equal, they will have the same amount of genetic diversity as any other two individuals in the population.

Of course. How could I be "missing" that fact? My focus is on what happens in order to get new breeds or varieties or "species," and you could get MANY different breeds out of the same population by selecting out many groups of individuals in small numbers and isolating them. In all cases what happens is that a small number relative to the greater population, (ABE: which of course has less genetic diversity than the greater population) gets reproductively isolated and inbreeds.

That's the case with the development of any variety, and again it doesn't have to be SUCH a small number for the principle to be true. If the original population was large enough then you could get MANY varieties or breeds out of it simply by selecting out any small number of individuals relative to the original population and inbreeding them. Each new population will have its own peculiar allele frequencies and develop its own peculiar new "look" or population-wide phenotype after some number of generations of inbreeding among themselves.

I don't know the exact history of course but it seems to me that is how the hundreds of different cattle breeds would have developed. The original wild cattle could have existed in the millions, but every time a small number (it could be a few or a hundred or even a few thousand from such a large original herd) -- every time a small number is taken out to be bred separately it's going to develop its own characteristics from its own reduced genetic diversity, its own new allele frequencies. I'm sure there was a lot of mixing going on over the centuries but in the purest scenario all the breeds could have been developed simply from their own reduced gene pool cut straight out of the original population. You don't need mutations. Mutations are redundant in this scenario. The built in genetic diversity of the original wild population is more than sufficient to have created all the breeds we see today.

The individuals have not lost diversity - they just don't have access to a larger genetic pool anymore.

Exactly, and if they are isolated and inbreed over generations that's how you get a new breed, and it's always going to have reduced genetic diversity with respect to the original population. And again it can be many more individuals than just two and the same principle will apply.

If they survive, they will recover genetic diversity through mutation and carry on in their own way finding a best fit to their new environment. But this will take thousands of years, maybe hundreds of thousands - if they survive (and the likelihood is that they won't.)

Yes it would take thousands of years if this happened, but in fact creatures formed from such a tight bottleneck can be fairly healthy and go on surviving, such as the cheetah and the elephant seal, although the individuals are now pretty much clones of each other. In a non-disease-ridden world there would be no threat to them at all.

But my claim is that ALL new breeds develop according to this same principle. (and I consider the cheetah and the elephant seal to be breeds though I know the fact that they were formed from just a few individuals gives them some other status in the eyes of science. Again I think science is missing the point. It shouldn't matter how the new breed is formed, if it has its own genetic picture to itself then its a breed unto itself.) They all come from a reduced number of individuals which of course as a group unto themselves possess a reduced genetic diversity from the greater population from which they diverged. It can be a large enough number so that inbreeding won't threaten their health and they will still develop a characteristic new "look" over generations of inbreeding, they sill still become a breed unto themselves. Some may lose the ability to interbreed with the original population and will get called a "real species" but isn't it obvious what an artificial idea that is?

The second part of your story is simply the hoary old tale of a super genome where every organism on the planet contains enough genetic variety to form into any species.

I used to be looking for some different kind of genome in the original Kinds or Species but I finally came across the information about the percentage of heterozygosity in today's human population and its ability to produce all the variety of human beings we see today. That clued me that the original genome looked exactly like our genome except that there was an enormously greater percentage of heterozygosity for all traits than we see today, such that even a bottleneck after 1500 years would still preserve a very large amount of heterozygosity and be sufficient to produce all the varieties of all the animals that would have developed since the Flood. Simple heterozygosity for many more traits is all the Super Genome had over today's genomes. And I also think it very likely that Junk DNA is mostly in reality a record of the bottleneck of the Flood which killed such a huge percentage of individuals, human and animal, including a record of all the deaths besides that as well that took functioning genes out of operation over the centuries.

That's a assertion which should be possible to prove, so please point to the peer reviewed science that proves it.

I don't know how a formerly greater heterozygosity might be proved, do you? If there is a way I hope some enterprising creationist who understands all this stuff far better than I do will come along and prove it and do the peer reviewed science.

AbE: I did many times propose a laboratory experiment that would at least demonstrate that developing new breeds always goes along with reduced genetic diversity and that eventually after many variations along any particular line, one population splitting off from a previous, you'll reach the point where there is no genetic diversity left for further variation. The experiment would involve collecting a few individuals of some creature that still has a fair amount of genetic diversity in its population, some small enough creature to manage in a laboratory but a sexually-reproducing creature and preferably one that produces offspring fairly frequently so as not to prolong the experiment. Something the size of a mouse or a salamander perhaps. Isolate them together in a large cage and let them inbreed for a few generations. See if they develop a look different from the original population and peculiar to themselves. Test the DNA to see how much homozygosity there is as compared to the original population. Then take a few individuals from the new breed and do exactly the same thing with them. And so on from that new breed -- or breeds if you are developing a number of breeds. Do DNA analyses on each. The prediction is that you'll eventually reach a point down any particular path of variation where you aren't getting new traits and the genetic diversity is just about depleted.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Tangle, posted 10-03-2013 11:48 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Tangle, posted 10-03-2013 2:37 PM Faith has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6950
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 5.1


(1)
Message 182 of 457 (708015)
10-03-2013 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Faith
10-03-2013 1:19 PM


Re: Back on topic
That's a lot of very repetitive words that boil down to a very few simple points.

1. The isolation of individuals from the main population reduces the genetic diversity available to those individuals for further breeding, but it does not reduce genetic diversity in the individuals themselves.

2. If the smaller population survives - and very small populations are very unlikely too - it's stuck with whatever genes it has in the reduced gene pool. The larger the number of isolated organisms, the larger the genetic diversity.

3. The surviving population will reproduce and adapt to it's new environment or it will die. If the environment is similar to its last one there's no reason to expect much change. If it differs a lot, they will die. If it differs only slightly there's the possibility that the naturally occurring and random mutaions that we see routinely happen during sexual reproduction will make cahnges to the animals and some of them will be beneficial to them.

4. Over a long period this process will increase the genetic diversity of the new population and may also create organisms which can no longer breed with the old. This process will take a very long time.

All that's just simple 101 biology.

Now the disputed parts seem to be:

1. That mutations can be beneficial. I'm not interested in arguing that point because it's also in the 'bleedin' obvious' category.

2. That a species once isolated will somehow miraculously 'turn into' another species because the genes for it to do so are already in it's genotype. This is from this extreemly weird statement:

(and I consider the cheetah and the elephant seal to be breeds though I know the fact that they were formed from just a few individuals gives them some other status in the eyes of science. Again I think science is missing the point. It shouldn't matter how the new breed is formed, if it has its own genetic picture to itself then its a breed unto itself.)

So seals and cheetahs are breeds and deveoped from the very same original genotype.

That is a fantastical statement - it would be a huge amount of fun to hear how you think that might have happened without mutation and selection - how did a cheetah-like kind turn into a seal-like kind? And where are all these extra genes hiding? If you say Junk, I'm going to say prove it. (And accept your Nobel Prize.)

Go for it gal!


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Faith, posted 10-03-2013 1:19 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by NoNukes, posted 10-03-2013 3:10 PM Tangle has not yet responded
 Message 185 by Faith, posted 10-03-2013 5:31 PM Tangle has responded

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3110
Joined: 08-11-2004


(1)
Message 183 of 457 (708017)
10-03-2013 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Faith
10-03-2013 11:21 AM


Re: Back on topic
Allele

one of two or more alternative forms of a gene that arise by mutation and are found at the same place on a chromosome.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Faith, posted 10-03-2013 11:21 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Faith, posted 10-03-2013 5:46 PM ramoss has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 184 of 457 (708018)
10-03-2013 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Tangle
10-03-2013 2:37 PM


Re: Back on topic
So seals and cheetahs are breeds and deveoped from the very same original genotype.

I think she means that they are each derived by breeding from separate yet to be named animals and not that they are related in any way to each other.

Either way though, it is pretty easy to say, 'I consider' when you don't have to defend your statement. In an evidence based discussion though, 'I consider' statements don't amount to anything.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Tangle, posted 10-03-2013 2:37 PM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Faith, posted 10-03-2013 5:36 PM NoNukes has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32133
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 185 of 457 (708023)
10-03-2013 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Tangle
10-03-2013 2:37 PM


Re: Back on topic
(and I consider the cheetah and the elephant seal to be breeds though I know the fact that they were formed from just a few individuals gives them some other status in the eyes of science. Again I think science is missing the point. It shouldn't matter how the new breed is formed, if it has its own genetic picture to itself then its a breed unto itself.)

So seals and cheetahs are breeds and deveoped from the very same original genotype.

So I needed to say that EACH was formed from just a few individuals? Seals in the one case, cats in the other. Really, that wasn't clear to you that I couldn't possibly have meant they both came from the same genotype? Is it any wonder I have to repeat and repeat and repeat the simplest facts so as not to be misunderstood considering that this absurd degree of misunderstanding is actually possible?

Amazing that you think I could go from getting four points right that would get me an A in a Biology 101 class and yet also think I could be saying something as absurd as that the seal and the cheetah developed from the same genotype. Now THAT's amazing.

Ah well.

I figured people would object to calling these bottleneck-created creatures "breeds" of course, but your misunderstanding is beyond anything I could have imagined.

Ah well.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Tangle, posted 10-03-2013 2:37 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Tangle, posted 10-04-2013 7:20 AM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32133
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 186 of 457 (708024)
10-03-2013 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by NoNukes
10-03-2013 3:10 PM


Re: Back on topic
Either way though, it is pretty easy to say, 'I consider' when you don't have to defend your statement. In an evidence based discussion though, 'I consider' statements don't amount to anything.

It's a theory I have, a thought I have, that the severely genetically depleted seals and the cheetah really deserve to be called "breeds" and that putting them in any other category is an artificial definitional maneuver; the way they are defined makes it hard to make the points I want to make about the sameness of the basic principle and method by which all new breeds develop, and it seems me that the reasoning I've given IS a defense for regarding them as breeds: That is, I'm answering a definitional claim with a definitional claim based on the fact that all breeds develop from reduced numbers and therefore reduced genetic diversity. What sort of evidence would you have me produce in such a case?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by NoNukes, posted 10-03-2013 3:10 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by NoNukes, posted 10-04-2013 12:38 AM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32133
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 187 of 457 (708026)
10-03-2013 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by ramoss
10-03-2013 2:51 PM


Re: Back on topic
Allele: one of two or more alternative forms of a gene that arise by mutation and are found at the same place on a chromosome.

That definition must be from a recent Evolutionist Dictionary. The definition doesn't require saying HOW they arise, but if that's now part of it it's just something else I have to keep answering, because of course it's just another tendentious claim from the ToE.

An allele is an alternative form of a gene, no argument there. The gene itself is the location on the chromosome and that remains there while different alleles or forms of that gene occupy that place. It's very rare for a gene itself to be moved about or changed, if it ever does happen, and I recall that on the Genetics thread about year ago that someone clearly said that No, genes are not exchanged, only alleles.

Probably the simplest examples of alleles are the Mendelian dominant B for brown eyes and the recessive b for blue eyes so that if the two are paired side by side you get brown eyes, if two Bs are paired you get brown eyes and if two b's are paired you get blue eyes.

The B is an allele and the b is another allele, both for eye color which is the gene or location on the chromosome. This is the basic idea I have in mind in everything I'm saying. There is no reason to suppose any of it arises by mutation but if it occasionally does the pairings still get expressed in the same way.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by ramoss, posted 10-03-2013 2:51 PM ramoss has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by ramoss, posted 10-03-2013 10:18 PM Faith has responded

    
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3110
Joined: 08-11-2004


(1)
Message 188 of 457 (708040)
10-03-2013 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Faith
10-03-2013 5:46 PM


Re: Back on topic
mu·ta·tion

the changing of the structure of a gene, resulting in a variant form that may be transmitted to subsequent generations, caused by the alteration of single base units in DNA, or the deletion, insertion, or rearrangement of larger sections of genes or chromosomes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Faith, posted 10-03-2013 5:46 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Faith, posted 10-03-2013 10:38 PM ramoss has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32133
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 189 of 457 (708041)
10-03-2013 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by ramoss
10-03-2013 10:18 PM


Re: Back on topic
Mutation:
the changing of the structure of a gene, resulting in a variant form that may be transmitted to subsequent generations, caused by the alteration of single base units in DNA, or the deletion, insertion, or rearrangement of larger sections of genes or chromosomes.

Interesting how dictionaries can be written to prove anything, such as that mutations are mere "variant forms that may be transmitted to future generations." The ToE requires that it be so, therefore it is so. No such thing has REALLY been proven but they can now just define it into existence so that it convinces people that it has been. Pure word magic. Whoever has the power runs the show. It sure isn't truth and reality running the show.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by ramoss, posted 10-03-2013 10:18 PM ramoss has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Coyote, posted 10-03-2013 10:45 PM Faith has responded
 Message 191 by NoNukes, posted 10-03-2013 10:56 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 197 by PaulK, posted 10-04-2013 1:54 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 298 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 190 of 457 (708042)
10-03-2013 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Faith
10-03-2013 10:38 PM


Re: Back on topic
Interesting how dictionaries can be written to prove anything, such as that mutations are mere "variant forms that may be transmitted to future generations." The ToE requires that it be so, therefore it is so. No such thing has REALLY been proven but they can now just define it into existence so that it convinces people that it has been. Pure word magic. Whoever has the power runs the show. It sure isn't truth and reality running the show.

Actually you and the other creationists are trying to define various scientific terms out of existence, or to give them entirely different meanings.


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 189 by Faith, posted 10-03-2013 10:38 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Faith, posted 10-04-2013 12:43 AM Coyote has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 191 of 457 (708043)
10-03-2013 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Faith
10-03-2013 10:38 PM


Re: Back on topic
dictionaries can be written to prove anything.

Pathetic. You misuse word after word and then somehow it is the fault of the dictionary that your sentences and arguments make no sense. I wonder what happens on your blog when there is no one to give you any feedback.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Faith, posted 10-03-2013 10:38 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 192 of 457 (708044)
10-04-2013 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Faith
10-03-2013 5:36 PM


This isn't about the dictionary...
That is, I'm answering a definitional claim with a definitional claim based on the fact that all breeds develop from reduced numbers and therefore reduced genetic diversity.

You cannot solve your problem with a dictionary. What you are doing is pretending that calling an ear a leg allows a dog to walk on his head.

The distinction between dog breeds and bottle necked cheetahs is not merely a matter of definition. Cheetahs are genetically similar to each other in ways that collies are not. Cheetahs were once an ordinary species with the same kind of genetic variety you see in other big cats. But now they are so alike that a cheetah will accept skin grafts from any other unrelated cheetah. This result came from speciation followed later by near extinction, and not by a loss of diversity resulting from speciation.

Now maybe you want to argue that I am wrong about cheetahs. Sure, go ahead and make your case. But simply 'considering' cheetahs breeds is not an argument. It's naked assertion.

None of us ought to give a hoot that you 'consider' yourself right. And that's how it should be until you make a successful, evidence based argument.

What sort of evidence would you have me produce in such a case?

Because you are wrong, I don't expect that you can provide any evidence. I expect you to keep on announcing that nobody understands how right you are.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Faith, posted 10-03-2013 5:36 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Faith, posted 10-04-2013 12:46 AM NoNukes has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32133
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 193 of 457 (708045)
10-04-2013 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Coyote
10-03-2013 10:45 PM


Re: Back on topic
Actually you and the other creationists are trying to define various scientific terms out of existence, or to give them entirely different meanings.

Of course we are and it's a struggle against the evolutionist definitions which don't define things as we define them. Just to convey the simplest things requires me to qualify and qualify to try to get free of the evolutionist assumptions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Coyote, posted 10-03-2013 10:45 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Coyote, posted 10-04-2013 12:56 AM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32133
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 194 of 457 (708046)
10-04-2013 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by NoNukes
10-04-2013 12:38 AM


Re: This isn't about the dictionary...
What you are saying is common knowledge and adds nothing to the discussion. THE WAY that cheetahs are to be classed with other breeds is what I've already said, that a bottleneck is simply one example of the way breeds are formed, by the reproductive isolation of a small number of individuals which naturally has less genetic diversity than the previous population. That's the similarity, I've claimed no other. The point is to talk about the method that forms breeds, not the condition of the breeds.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by NoNukes, posted 10-04-2013 12:38 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by NoNukes, posted 10-04-2013 10:27 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 298 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 195 of 457 (708047)
10-04-2013 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by Faith
10-04-2013 12:43 AM


What's wrong!
Actually you and the other creationists are trying to define various scientific terms out of existence, or to give them entirely different meanings.

Of course we are and it's a struggle against the evolutionist definitions which don't define things as we define them. Just to convey the simplest things requires me to qualify and qualify to try to get free of the evolutionist assumptions.

Why in the world would scientists, and those who make dictionaries, try to limit their definitions to what creationists prefer?

Creationists are like fleas thinking they are directing the dog where to go and what to do!

Science is going ahead whether you say yea or nay, following the evidence where it leads. You can stand there like King Cnut trying to hold back the tide with words, but without evidence to support your claims you aren't going to get anywhere.

And what use are beliefs contradicted by real-world evidence, anyway? Creationists put the Red Queen to shame: she could only manage to believe six impossible things before breakfast!


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 193 by Faith, posted 10-04-2013 12:43 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Faith, posted 10-04-2013 1:09 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1112
13
1415
...
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