|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: "Best" evidence for evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Of course I can't explain the order. The order in fact makes no sense. It's there but it makes no sense. Anyway the animals that made the footprints got buried IN the order.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
No, what I thought I said was that I could explain how the TRACE FOSSILE fit into the order.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'm not out to establish a definitive creationist taxonomy, I just wanted to identify some groups morphologically as a Kind. I'm not interested in distinguishing between groups that continue to interbreed versus those that don't. And I'm sure except for a few examples that interest me, such as the trilobites, I'm not going to try to classify insects.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
How very strange of you. I never had the ambition to create a Linnaean chart for creationism, I certainly kjnew I was never going to tackle insects. or sea creatures. I just wanted to spell out Kind up to as far as I could take it with animals I happen to think about a lot. I'm very happy to see where the dog Kind fits into Linnaeus and thank you for the chart that helped in that. Not all creatures are going to fit the "Family" category. I already know Birds don't. So I will probably go on with it at some other time.
Thanks again. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Haven't I answered all this some time before? I vaguely remember having done that. Anyway:
Of course, if you'd seen people breed new canine species your argument would lose its validity, wouldn't it? I hardly think so. I know breeding practices have changed in recent times after they learned that purebreds are subject to diseases. Now they go for some hybridization to keep the animals healthy, hopefully withtou loxing the breed's best qualities. Going for the purebred is what I have in mind of course because that's where the genetic reduction is most dramatic and takes its toll in compromised health. The point is that when you breed for certain characteristics you are eliminating the characteristcs you don't want in your breed. This eventually leads to homozygosity for the characteristics you are breeding for. Too much homozygosity is bad for the animal's health but it is what creates a purebred. I always like to compare this to the cheetah which was "bred" in nature apparently by its parent being reduced to very few individuals which were then isolated and bred among themselves producing the wonderful cheetah. It is a wonderful animal,but its survival is threatened because its genetic depletion makes it vulnerable and compromises its ability to reproduce. The cheetah came about by a drastic reduction in numbers in Nature, which is how purebreds are made through domestic breeding, and the genetic result is the same as if it were intentionally bred for its dharacteristics. Dogs never lose their ability to reproduce with other breeds even when drastically genetically reduced, but the cheetah has lost that ability.
That's just what happened, not with dogs, but with agriculture! Humans produced enormously different species of wheat (even changing the number of chromosomes!) over the course of thousands of years. The new species were not "depleted". If they were, how would we get the bread we put in our toasters every morning? Eh what? Genetic reduction or depletion goes with the formation of new phenotypes. You put the phenotype in your toaster.
quote: An increase in the number of chromosomes doesn't mean there's no genetic depletion if that's what you're getting at. Sometimes genes duplicate, sometimes chromosomes break apart. Nothing new is added. Yes some species can be bred to produce an enormous number of varieties or subspecies with wonderful new characteristics. It's built into their genome. It's microevolution, which is variation built into the genome. You get marvelous new phenotypes from such breeding. This built-in ability of the genome of all creatures gives us human beings the ability to make all kinds of changes and improvements in all creatures as God commanded us to do. But it's always only variation within the genome, getting new variations on the creature, not evolution in the sense of the ToE. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
What haven't I "learned?" I've learned how Linnaeus organized things in some categories. But I need a different approach since I'm trying to define the Kind. Meanwhile I "learned" the other point of view.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
After years of understanding that the cheetah was the result of a Founder event that rendendered them endangered I am simply not going to even consider your post. Evolutionists are always changing things around, moving the goal posts.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
What I learned is that the Kind has very little to do with the Linnaean taxonomy. The Family category does it for dogs but not for birds and probably other creatures will be all over the Linnaean chart as far as establishing their Kind goes. The Kind is ultimately genetically defined and that works just fine for the Family level for dogs, but nothing above that on the taxonomic chart is relevant except for academic purposes. Sure, Mammal, Carnivore, but irrelevant for defining the original created Kind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Oh fer. Read up on the concerns of conservationists for the terrible endangerment of the cheetah due to its genetically depleted condition due to the bottleneck/Founder Effect. I didn't make that up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I see, well when you drastically reduce genetic diversity it stands to reason you are going to get phenotypic change because that's how it works.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
What ARE you taling about? The elephant seals are certainly genetically depleted. They are able to reproduce in great numbers but they don't have the genetic capacity to vary.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You just aren't thinking at all. When I say it's genetically determined I am NOT saying I know how, I'm saying that has to be the case whether we know how or not. Sheesh. As far as I know there is no way to know the genetic boundaries. But I do, yes I do, stick to my argument about built-in barriers to evolution. I know you fail to get it, you keep throwing in mutations although they can't make a difference. It does define the boundaries of the Kind functionally. You have to THINK to understand it of course, that does make it difficult.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Um, seals really don't change a lot. That proves nothing. Actually I'm sure there are changes to the eye of a biologist who studied them before and after their destruction, however.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I HAVE NO IDEA *HOW MUCH* CHEETAHS CHANGED. ALL I KNOW IS THAT THEY ARE SAID TO HAVE COME THROUGH A BOTTLENECK AND THAT IS WHY THEY ARE ENDANGERED. IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER HOW MUCH THEY CHANGED. THEY HAD TO CHANGE *SOME* BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU GET GENETIC REDUCTION, BUT HOW MUCH WOULD DEPEND ON HOW MUCH CHANGE THEY UNDERWENT THROUGH THE BOTTLENECK AND THAT WOULD DEPEND ON THE DEGREE OF GENETIC DIVERSITY THEY HAD BEFORE THE BOTTLENECK. SURELY THERE WAS *SOME* CHANGE. I DON'T CARE HOW MUCH, WHY DO YOU?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Bottleneck HAS to change a creature but how much change depends as I said on how much genetic diversity was present before the bottleneck. That can't be known. But it's irrelevant. The cheetah now is the cheetah and it's so genetically depleted because of the bottleneck it is endangered.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024