Dog breeders do this to sell dogs with specific traits, but this results in genetic loss (selecting for dogs with short hair, long snouts, small legs, etc).
So examples of long hair, short snouts, and long legs can be used as evidence for genetic gains? Or are you going to claim that all new traits are the result of genetic loss? How much can a bacteria lose before it becomes human, or is it only the other way around? How can we identify the correct route? (Or can information lost never result in a new kind) Is the size of the DNA an indicator of the amount of information?
If this is your evidence for all of evolution, then the original bacteria on earth contained all the information required to form the diverse life today, which is quite impossible.
Why is this impossible exactly? I am certainly not claiming it to be true, I am just curious as to your reasoning. It would be interesting to have a creationist identify how much information is present in any given sample and compare it to other samples. You appear to be on the verge of an actual hypothesis that could be tested.
In fact, we observe the opposite, that even though mutation can result in beneficial advantages over others within the species (rare but documented), these mutations are the result of genetic loss (wingless beetles, eyeless fish in caves, etc.).
Please show me your evidence that beetles lost their wings or fish lost their eyes, of course I believe this to be true, but I am curious how you came to accept that evidence while denying nearly all other evidence scientists present. Did you blindly accept this to be true or was there compelling evidence to support these claims?
Your post, and my questions about it, would seem to lead to answers not about evolution but about The Creationist Method, if there is such a thing. I would love to hear some answers but depending on your answers a new thread could be in order.
quote:So examples of long hair, short snouts, and long legs can be used as evidence for genetic gains?
So dogs are neither evidence for "genetic loss" or "genetic gains". Fine with me, I just wonder why you said "Dog breeders do this to sell dogs with specific traits, but this results in genetic loss" but now your claiming "that all our traits have been here since God created us." So which is it?
Why would I try to argue your point?
Where did I make a point? I asked questions, did you miss that point?
Since new genetic information is required to take bacteria to human over time.
But none is needed to turn a Wolf into a Poodle? (or some such example of selective breeding) If all the information is present, how did you come to show this via evidence? If all the variety is via decay then how did you arrive at this conclusion?
You really don't get why it is impossible for the first bacteria to contain all the genetic information for all the diverse life today?
At what point in my post did you incorrectly conclude it was about my opinions of science and not about yours? I asked questions, you can answer or not, but why pretend my post was about my opinions? I may or may not "get why its impossible", its not really the issue. I would like to know how you arrived at this conclusion, I know already how I arrived at it. So did you accept it blindly, just make it up, or do you have any supporting evidence?
I'll let someone else make fun of you.
Thus far your doing a sad job, best leave it to someone else. Care to explain why you made an assertion and don't mind tossing out some ridicule while dodging my asking for supporting evidence? Did you just make it up perhaps?
Hahaha, you are funny to talk to. Here is the evidence:
Oh good. You give me a quote about Darwin. Not a quote from Darwin, and not even a quote with any evidence. Interesting but not really what I asked for.
I asked for you to show me the evidence that you have come to accept in our modern world and you give me an opinion of Darwins.
I'm not here to defend by beliefs at the moment. You can start another thread if you wish, but I'm too busy with the few thread I do post in. For now, I am interested in debating different aspects of evolution.
You're not here to defend but you have no problem tossing out the assertions? Not very classy. I respect that you're too busy, the more incorrect or unsupported claims you toss into a post the more replies you will find to occupy your time. Thanks for clearing up a few minor points about your post, the major unsupported claims will just have to rest on your good name and fine character?
God created each animal after it's kind with enough genetic information to give us the variety we see today
Perfect. Now would you kindly tell me how you arrived at this conclusion? You assert that bacteria do not have all the information present to make a human, but wolves do have all the information present to make every breed of dog. That's a testable statement. So I would expect that you arrived at this conclusion because someone tested it? Right?
I don't mean that someone hasn't done a test (hasn't made a human from bacteria or a cat from a dog), I mean an actual test that produced results.
I have lost track of what this is about, but if you remind me, I will gladly.
In message 288 you claimed that it was impossible for "the original bacteria on earth contained all the information required to form the diverse life today". I asked for supporting evidence. Not because I believe it to be true, but because I don't think you have evidence for any of your claims about "decay" or "information" or "kinds". I just figured if you could support that claim it would help for a baseline to all the other claims your making. (there you go, a reminder and a giveaway)
I have no idea what you are talking about
I asked for evidence that beetles lost their wings or fish lost their eyes. You laughed at me and supplied a quote from a guy talking about an opinion that Darwin had. As if that is any sort of evidence at all. That is what I was talking about.
Care to supply some evidence instead?
Fine fine. Where do you want to start?
Beetles losing their wings, bacteria not having information, dogs losing information, and just for fun "kinds".
Since you don't know me, it would be unwise to let what I say rest on my 'good character'. But since you offered no rebuttal to any of my claims, your next email will be left alone. I do my best to deal with those that are interested in arguing points of the topic, not those that are mad at my sources, but do not refute any claims made.
Your correct, your "good character" means nothing to me, I prefer the evidence. Feel free to start supplying it. I need not provide a rebuttal to your claims any more than I need to tell you that I enjoy hamburgers while asking you to explain why you like steak. You made the claims, I happen to have taken in interest in your supporting evidence.
I have every intention of refuting your claims, wait and see. I plan to let you do all the refuting by not supplying reasonable evidence to support them. Now that I have given up my plan I hope we can carry on with showing you're wrong about evolution.
Dwarfism is a condition affecting the conversion of cartilage to bone.
Do what your name says if you don't know.
Its in your best interest to not make assumptions about people whom you have not clue about. Now you could assume that I have never heard of; or worked with clients who have; or read about dwarfism. You could assume that.
Or you could assume that I wanted you to back up your assertions while I was making a completely accurate statement, I said "And short legs is not dwarfism." . Same that just because I am taller than my wife does not mean I have gigantism while she is a dwarf, we just happen to have longer and shorter legs. I guess you could have assumed I simply didn't know something while you attempt to not be an ass about linking to your evidence. Thanks for the link though.