Problems with evolution? Submit your questions.

quote:

---

Still waiting for those statistics.

---

Np.Heres a study done in the UK:Just a moment...Need more? Okay:

quote:

---

In the 1980s, adoptees who exhibited "Attachment Disorder" were further categorized as a "sub-set spectrum" of adoptees who, to varying degrees, exhibit eight specific antisocial Adopted Child Syndrome (ACS) behaviors -- according to noted psychologists, Kirschner, Sorosky, Schecter, Carlson, Simmons, Work, Goodman, Silverstein, Mandell, Menlove, Simon, Senturia, Offord, Aponti, Cross and others. However the "spectrum" is never defined, so it is argued that all adoptees are at risk due to the complexities of adoptees' dual identities and secret pasts. Although Brazelton referred to ACS as "malarkey" in the press, psychiatrist David Cooke said "Adopted Child Syndrome is simply a new name for a phenomenon that has been observed since the 1950's" (by Paton). The ACS behaviors most commonly referred to are:

​

-conflict with authority (for example truancy);
-preoccupation with excessive fantasy;
-pathological lying;
-stealing;
-running away (from home, school, group homes, situations);
-learning difficulties, under-achievement, over-achievement;
-lack of impulse control (acting out, promiscuity, sex crimes);
-fascination with fire, fire-setting

​

Togel SDY: Keluaran SDY, Pengeluaran SDY, Result SDY Hari Ini - Togel SDY

---

Hense the expression: Were you adopted?

quote:

---

And if the selective conditions for humans being smart were removed, our species would become as dumb as monkeys.

---

This is only correct if human intelligence was aquired through HGT, which, it was not.

quote:

---

Whereas mutation does.

---

And once you prove that, we will move on.

quote:

---

We are discussing it when we're talking about mutation

---

Okay, then lets discard HGT for the moment, and discuss your evidence for genetic mutation strictly.

quote:

---

The improvement in the molecule was not present in the original cell. It arose through mutation.

---

Mutation of existing information, be it positive or negative is a good example of microevolution. But you have not shown that these mutations resulted in new, or more complex DNA sequences.

quote:

---

According to you, "genetic loss" is when a gene stops working. The gene did not stop working.

---

No, I said genetic loss can result in useless information. But though some information can be lost, other systems may benefit from this. If the benefit outweighs the harm, then the loss-mutation is beneficial.

quote:

---

Might get your ass kicked someday

---

Something tells me that is not likely. I work in the oilfield. We don't get offended by anything. We don't suffer from diseases, we're happy with them. My nickname for the first year I worked out here was pissed infected cumbubble (pic for short). Being called adopted would be like eating a Kit Kat. A nice break.

quote:

---

Nothing in the abstract of the first says anything about adoptees in comparison to the general public.

---

Oh. I didn't realize that having a disease specifically for adopted people was enough...one sec.

quote:

---

It has long been documented that former foster kids are overrepresented in America's prisons....Example: "69% on inmates in California State Prisons were former foster children; 60% in Massachusetts were foster children" according to testimony on the Congressional Record. The same appears to be true of adoptees.... Example: According to FBI stats: "16% of 500 serial killers are adoptees." Freedom of Information/Privacy Act — FBI and according to Dr. Mike Aamodt, Radford University, "14% of 225 serial killers are adoptees."
Togel SDY: Keluaran SDY, Pengeluaran SDY, Result SDY Hari Ini - Togel SDY

---

Specifically to your prisoner point.And specifically to your school dropout point:

quote:

---

Parents thinking about getting divorced, especially for the second or third time, should consider the impact of that decision on their children's schooling, new research from University of Alberta suggests.

​

The groundbreaking study -- believed to the first in Canada to look at the long-term impacts of household upheaval on academic success -- found children who experience changes to their family structure are much more likely to become high school dropouts than classmates whose parents stay together.

​

The findings were particularly grim for children who live through three or more parental changes: divorce or death, remarriage or another divorce. Such children have just a 40-per-cent chance of completing their high school diplomas, a success rate half that of children with no family shakeup.

---

quote:

---

Of course they were new.

---

In a way, you are right. But the origin of the 'new' information is from existing information, for which no source has been explained.

quote:

---

I believe I have, the penny just hasn't dropped yet.

---

I don't think you even have a penny in your pocket. You have shown that HGT COULD explain how mutation is passed around, though this is questionable, and to the side for the moment. You have not explained how new chemical arrangements come about by random chance, or mutation.

quote:

---

Heck, that's what "mutation" means.

---

Mutation is the damage, or alteration of the genetic 'message' carried by any gene. This does not offer evidence for the origin of new chemical arrangements. They are also not new. They are changed. If I buy a car, then sell it without tires, is the car new? No, it is missing a specific part for it to function properly.

quote:

---

The specific mutations we're discussing didn't produce chemically useless nucleotide arrangements. Hence they are not genetic loss.

---

First, you have not shown that. Second, though a specific sequence of nucleotides can be damaged, the gene as a whole can still function.

quote:

---

because the birth parents are still usually involved to some point

---

Although I am certain this may be the case in some instances, I have to disagree. My mom fostered children for over 20 years, and still does (since I was 12). In the 8 years I lived at home with these different kids, I never once met their parents, or in any way saw that their parents were involved with their life. In fact, I can think of at least 5 that their parents were dead, 3 that had their kids taken away, and 2 that their parents abused them.

quote:

---

Foster children are not adopted children.

---

quote:

---

Therefore, it begs the question as to WHY, if adoption (instead of foster care or permanent guardianship) is truly in the adoptees' "best interests," does "an over-representation of adoptees" end up in prison --

​

regardless whether adopted as newborns or later in childhood,
regardless whether placed with abusive or loving adopters,
regardless whether they inherited "good genes" or "bad" genes from loving or abusive biological parents,
regardless whether of one race/nationality or another,
Togel SDY: Keluaran SDY, Pengeluaran SDY, Result SDY Hari Ini - Togel SDY

---

The information above is from the same source I gave you that you wanted to read (I think you wanted the reference for prisoners).

quote:

---

Statistically, they are more likely drop out of school, commit crimes, and not go to college.

---

Passed with flying colors. If you think any of the information is not valid, please feel free to prove me wrong. If you want to voice your opinion, feel free. But this doesn't make me wrong, it makes you adopted, hahahahaha. DING.

quote:

---

I'm genuinely mystified as to what Dennis' problem is.

---

Mine is with evolution Anna.

quote:

---

Surely he must concede that e.g. point mutations *exist* and are random (which can be demonstrated). Then it is common sense that sufficient pile-up of random mutations is capable of transforming any sequence of DNA

---

This is perfectly scientific. You were so close to making your arguement sound good.Then you said this at the end:

quote:

---

which would include functional genes.

---

First, this has nothing to do with the source of new chemically useful genetic arrangements. 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). 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.

quote:

---

Here's a scenario:

---

I'm ready.

quote:

---

but a first step is taken in the transformation of a gene to a possible other functional.

---

Virtually all observed mutations are loss of information. This is different from loss or gain of function. If DNA gets larger due to a mutation, but the sequence doesn’t code for anything then the amount of DNA added is useless. If you read back on this thread, you will find some debatable examples of genetic mutational gain (E. Coli), and on another thread, about Nylonese bacteria (both interesting reads). Though even if these arguable examples were true, there would need to be BILLIONS examples for macro evolution to make logical sense, and we simply do not observe that in nature today. 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.).

quote:

---

with a spare duplicate dysfunctional gene waiting there as target for yet more mutations

---

You clearly are mislead by someone, since not all mutations result in random new information floating around in a bathtub. Point, Inversion, and Deletion mutations result in no new useful chemical nucleotide arrangements, but rather a change within a pre-existing genetic sequence, that usually results in a chemically useless portion or whole of a gene.Frame shift mutations are quite possibly your best bet. But these genetic mutations are limited to an insertion or deletion of one or more letters not divisible by three, which begs the question, how did the others that are divisible by three mutate?

quote:

---

At any moment the genome can contain tens of thousands of such "laboratories" that do nothing - either positive or negative - for the time being.

---

To which there is much evidence that useless information is lost, not gained. Simply explained, there is no harmful result to any organisms that lose useless genetic arrangements, so no disadvantage is present. Loss of useful information does create a disadvantage, so survival of the fittest tells us that the other organisms within that species is more likely to survive. Fruit fly experiments ongoing over 100 years have shown that mutations usually make the organisms less likely to survive against the 'wild type' original species. I can go get the source for you if you like.

quote:

---

From a distance, the net result of these mechanisms looks a lot like directed design.

---

Because it is. Though this is yet to be determined, since I haven't even gotten to supporting my viewpoints yet.

quote:

---

giant iceberg of failed natural experiments.

---

I would ask for your evidence, but I suppose you don't have any, since there are no references to support anything said here.

quote:

---

It's a numbers game in which all but a minority fail.

---

Evolution is a game?

quote:

---

calculate the evolution of an unimpeded elephant population to get a nice illustration: in just a couple of thousands of years they will cover the entire solar system with elephant dung

---

Hahahahaha. This (if it is true) is actually an excellent point for ID. If elephants were, at one point, the most advanced of land organisms, what predators would kill them? Another example of overpopulation due to evolution over millions of years is flies.If two flies were left to reproduce over a year, without predators or other limitations, the resulting flies would cover the entire earth.I'm not sure what your point was there with the elephant poop, but it was really funny, and really bad.

quote:

---

You have anecdote on this. I have facts.

---

And since you did not respond to my evidence, I'm going to suppose you don't have a logical counterarguement. I win.However, your facts do not have references, meaning I have to take you at your word. Since I don't know you, I won't. But here are some facts about parents and adoption, WITH references:

quote:

---

Children come to foster care for a number of reasons. In many cases, they have suffered physical or sexual abuse, or neglect at home, and are placed in a safe environment. A small percentage of children are in foster care because their parents feel unable to control them, and their behavior may have led to delinquency or fear of harm to others. Some children have been neglected by their parents or legal guardians, or have parents or legal guardians who are unable to take care of them because of substance abuse, incarceration, or mental health problems. These children are placed into custodial care while the parents or guardians receive treatment or counseling, or fulfill their sentences...

​

...The goal of foster care is the care of the child within the child welfare system, but also is to place all appropriate and available services at the disposal of the parents so that they can create a safe, fit home environment for their children when they are reunited...

​

...More than half (57 percent) of all children in foster care are returned to their original homes; however, reunification rates have declined in the 1990s and early twenty-first century. Children also spend more time in the system. The average length of stay for a child in foster care is 33 months. However, some spend a very short time in a foster home, and others are there for their entire childhoods, "aging out" at 18 when they become legal adults.

---

These statistics say most cases are due to physical or sexual abuse, but also include prison time, drug and mental health issues. This source also says that children are removed from their environment until it is suitable, and can be reunited. This would suggest that they have not been united until a social worker has agreed to it.This source also says that just over half are re-united with parents (and declining over the years), rather than the 90% number you pulled out of your butt.Although I am sure you have good intentions to make the adoption system seem lovey dovey, you are completely wrong thus far, and have provided no evidence to support anything you claim.Furthurmore, I have shown that adoptees and foster children are more likely to be mentally unstable, spend time in prison, and less likely to graduate. So whether you are doing your part to help these kids or not, you are still wrong. I am going to assume that the child care program is not much different that Canadas, if not worse.

quote:

---

A recent survey of foster care alumni reported that only 20% of the children who have been placed in foster care do well in society once they reach adulthood.
How To Fail A Child - The American Foster Care Way | Pound Pup Legacy

---

The truth hurts sometimes big fella.Oh, and no, I don't mind the subject line. Freedom of speech allows you to express what you want. The evidence will make you look stupid on it's own.

quote:

---

Mutation. Selection.

​

The old information was once new itself.

---

Now wait. You claim that mutation is the source for new information. This is your claim. Now you need to support your claim with evidence. Repeating what you claim proves nothing. Furthuremore, you don't specify what types of mutation are logical evidences for mutation bringing about new information. There are different kinds.

quote:

---

We can watch it happening.

---

I can watch someone hotwire a car, does not mean that is the correct way for the engine to start, nor does it explain of everyone starts their cars this way, which they do not, since this is harmful to the car, damaging wiring components.

quote:

---

I really don't see what's confusing you. The word "mutation", or the word "new"

---

Nothing. Other than you still refuse to give evidence to support mutational evolution. I can just as easily say, "God created the earth, Adam was there". I have a witness. Does this make it true? Of course not. I need to support my claim with evidence. I think it's fair for you to do the same. Explain what mutational processes can account for new information.

quote:

---

I have explained that new chemical arrangements come about by mutation.

---

But not that these new arrangements are useful, nor that this information was not from a previous source. New arrangements of DNA must have function to offer an advantage to an organism. I can easily argue that mutation changes DNA, because it HAPPENS. What you have not argued is that any useful function comes about from these mutations.

quote:

---

Just "changed" information.

---

If you are talking about Micro evolution, you win. But new functional genetic information would be required for macro evolution.

quote:

---

If you buy a car, and change the tires for ones that have never been used before, are the tires new?

---

No. The material is old. The tires were fashioned by an intelligent designer for a specific function.

quote:

---

And, in the cases given, function better. So in what sense could they be considered "damaged"?

---

Loss or damage of any specific nucleotide sequences. Though the gene has lost information, it can still function, and quite possibly better than other organisms within it's species. But this is still due to a chemical loss. This usually results in a loss of specialization, but can actually benefit the organism, because the mutants have lost something the situation targets negatively overall within the group.

quote:

---

Yes I have. You have the desciption of the experiments, you have links to the complete papers.

---

You have given me sources for genetic change. In one case, you offered an experiment that was repeated with similar results. This is NOT evidence for random mutation, since the odds of any organism mutating similar to another, if in separate conditions is a huge impossibility. This would suggest that the organisms deliberately reprogrammed their DNA in response to environmental conditions, and in no way offers evidence for a random genetic mutation.

quote:

---

"I have found you an argument, but I am not obliged to find you an understanding."

---

Preach it.

quote:

---

And, in the cases given, function better. So in what sense could they be considered "damaged"?

---

No one is claiming that all mutations are harmful, and anyone that does is silly. But the genetic material is due to a loss of information. For example. A human being could lose the genetic information for platelets in their blood. This would be extremely beneficial in that their risk of heart attack and stroke is almost eliminated. But this genetic loss is also harmful since that same person could easily bleed to death from a small cut.I have no quarrel with genetic mutation, nor with beneficial mutations, since there are many examples of these. My quarrel is with GAIN of functional genetic chemical arrangements, by random mutations, of which you have not shown at all. I read back in your posts (to some extent, I don't have all day), the experiment performed by different labs that yielded similar results is out. If random mutation is your claim for the origin of new genetic information, any such experiment would NOT yield the same results, unless the organisms themselves caused the change, in order to survive in harmful conditions of some kind. Random mutation should not be repeatable, since it is RANDOM.

quote:

---

So examples of long hair, short snouts, and long legs can be used as evidence for genetic gains?

---

No.

quote:

---

Or are you going to claim that all new traits are the result of genetic loss?

---

I'm claiming that all our traits have been here since God created us. Why would I try to argue your point?

quote:

---

How much can a bacteria lose before it becomes human

---

You are missing some steps, but effectively, none. Since new genetic information is required to take bacteria to human over time.

quote:

---

Why is this impossible exactly?

---

Hahahahahahaa, really? 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? I'll let someone else make fun of you. I'm into it with Theo right now, and I gotta keep my enemy list down...

quote:

---

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.

---

Hahaha, you are funny to talk to. Here is the evidence:

quote:

---

Darwin called attention to wingless beetles on the island of Madeira. For a beetle living on a windy island, wings can be a definite disadvantage. Mutations producing the loss of flight could be helpful. Similar would be the case of sightless cave fish. Eyes are quite vulnerable to injury, and a creature that lives in pitch dark would benefit from mutations that would reduce that vulnerability. While these mutations produce a drastic and beneficial change, it is important to notice that they always involve loss and never gain. One never observes wings or eyes being produced on creatures on which they have never existed.
Genetics: Enemy of Evolution

---

I don't deny any scientific facts, since that would be unreasonable. I am still waiting for the evidence on the source of new functional genes.

quote:

---

I would love to hear some answers but depending on your answers a new thread could be in order.

---

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.

quote:

---

What "others that are divisible by three"?

​

I think this may be another case where you need to hit the sack and give yourself some time to sober up.

---

Thats funny. I never claimed to be a scientist, but I always research claims offered. I suggest you do the same from now on.

quote:

---

A frameshift mutation (also called a framing error or a reading frame shift) is a genetic mutation caused by indels (insertions or deletions) of a number of nucleotides that is not evenly divisible by three from a DNA sequence.
Frameshift mutation - Wikipedia

---

AGAIN, my question is:What caused the mutations of nucleotides 3,6,9,12,15,etc.I would prefer to stick to my debate with Dr. Adequate. If you don't know, the least you could do is make me laugh, then I would have a reason to respond...

quote:

---

you have decided that you're going to have a problem with it, no matter what

---

Until research generally points to genetic increases in functional DNA (for this subject in particular), yes.

quote:

---

fundamental mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection

---

I am a thorough believer in natural selection, and random mutation. My question to Dr. Adequate, and you, is can genetic mutation bring about new, usually more complex organisms over time? And if so, references.

quote:

---

declaring unequivocal experimental evidence as "doubtful"

---

No, I quoted them as wrong. Two experiments performed by different people should not yield similar results if genetic mutational gain is in fact, RANDOM.

quote:

---

See what I mean? (bolded) There's nothing debatable or questionable about these results

---

You really need to read back, I'm not restarting topics that have already been discussed.

quote:

---

Excuse me if I skip the part where it would take entire books to respond to all the confusion

---

What confusion? Why read a book about confusion?

quote:

---

Evidence, although plenty available, isn't even needed.

---

OH. I see. You don't like evidence. You like math. Okay. Heres some:

quote:

---

Population growth is increasing currently at a rate of approximately 1.8% per annum (World Book Encyclopaedia), or doubling every 39 years.

​

Even if the average time that the population doubled in the past was as slow as once every thousand years (that is one twenty-fifth of the present growth rate), this would put the first pair of humans on Earth only 31,500 years ago.

​

Some people, not willing to believe that mankind was created only a few thousand years ago, claim that the world’s population has been almost wiped out many times. Clearly it has never been wiped out entirely. While some people will assert that the human population has been almost wiped out a number of times, without their providing any evidence to back it up, these same people get very agitated if we suggest that the population was nearly wiped out once by a great Flood in the time of Noah.

​

The world’s population was approximately 600 million in the year 1650 and increased to about 2,400 million by 1950. This means that it would have doubled twice in 300 years, at an average rate of once every 150 years.
Human population growth - creation.com

---

The math here says that humans are not a million years old. Hmm. Still like math?

quote:

---

This is what I meant when I said that the typical state of a living being is "being dead".

---

I'm really not following you on your point. You are saying that most animals are dead, or that they are alive and will soon be dead? Also, how does any of this relate to evolution. Make your point already.

quote:

---

The underappreciated consequence of all this is, that negative mutations are irrelevant.

---

OHHH. Thats your point. Your wrong. Even an evolutionist will argue that a negative mutation that is passed on will put that group of organisms or animals at an evironmental disadvantage, and more than likely die off, since they are not as 'fit' as those that do not have a harmful mutation affecting some aspect of survival.

quote:

---

Since selection (the competition among the elephants for available resources) is non-random, they invariably disappear into the reservoir of elephants that die anyway.

---

The probability of elephants with advantages over others surviving is higher than those that do not (larger tusks, bigger overall size). These advantages allow them to better fight for things such as water, suitable mates, etc., things that you described. This is just survival of the fittest, which no one here is contesting.

quote:

---

guaranteed to be preserved by the advantages they bring to their carrier

---

Your example is a story, offering no examples of beneficial mutations. I don't understand your point again.

quote:

---

And this is why randomly shotgunning mutations at the genome ends up over time with the same result as from time to time carefully inserting a rare positive one.

---

No one is 'carefully inserting' anything, unless you are suggesting that an intelligent designer is the source for new genetic information (which is still wrong, since there is no evidence for this).AGAIN, no one is arguing that mutations can bring about a positive result. We are debating the SOURCE for new functional genetic code.You do write funny things though.

quote:

---

How many micros does it take for a macro?

---

You have 50 marbles. How many marbles do I have to take from you before you have a hundred?

quote:

---

Because that is what forms a macro--a lot of little micros and a bit of time and selection pressure.

---

Since almost all evidences for microevolutionary change has been caused by genetic loss, I would argue the opposite, that micro evolution fights against macro evolution.

quote:

---

Each generation is very close in all traits to the previous one.

---

I'm a firm believer in variation within a species as well (micro evolution).

quote:

---

When you look at grandfather, father, and son you see almost no change. But if you back off 300,000 years you will see a lot of changes, and if you go back 3,000,000 years you will see a lot more changes.

---

This is due to sexual reproduction. We are talking about the origin of new functional genetic information. You got the information from your parents. They got it from theirs, and so on. But where did it come from? For macro evolution to be true, all information must have a source. A period where, useful or not, a gene was formed by some process that contained useful information. Stay on topic, or GP so someone else can respond.

quote:

---

In order for any of your stats to have validity you need to talk about adopted not fostered.

---

Children are adopted from the foster care system (usually, unless a specific guardian is in mind).

quote:

---

Most adoptions in the U.S. are placed through the foster care system. In fiscal year 2000, 150,703 Foster children were adopted in the United States
Adoption in the United States - Wikipedia

---

The fact that the child has been removed from their biological parents is what causes the impact, not their legal status in the system.You still haven't given me your statistics showing that 90% of foster children are still in communication with their parents regularily. I'm interested to know where you got that number from (since you know where I got all mine from, it seems fair).

quote:

---

In our county, which is rural, the figure is actually 78%.

---

So you lied.

quote:

---

Again, you keep bringing up foster care. The issue is adoptees.

---

quote:

---

Therefore, it begs the question as to WHY, if adoption (instead of foster care or permanent guardianship) is truly in the adoptees' "best interests," does "an over-representation of adoptees" end up in prison --
regardless whether adopted as newborns or later in childhood,
regardless whether placed with abusive or loving adopters,
regardless whether they inherited "good genes" or "bad" genes from loving or abusive biological parents,
regardless whether of one race/nationality or another,
Togel SDY: Keluaran SDY, Pengeluaran SDY, Result SDY Hari Ini - Togel SDY

---

This source points to adoptees.and this one:

quote:

---

Schechter also noted hyperactivity and unmanageability in children of a young age. He also observed, particularly with one child, that it had relationships of the same quality with strangers as his parents, namely, superficial and dominated by a driving need to have his impulses satisfied immediately...

​

unhappiness, separation problems, difficulty knowing and learning, aggressive fantasies and acts, preoccupation with knives and other weapons, and his feelings of being deprived and robbed...

​

Schecter, Carlson, Simmons, & Work (1964) looked at adopted and non-adopted children in a psychiatric setting and found a much greater occurrence of overt destructive acts and sexual acting-out among adoptees...
originsvic.tripod.com/mentalhealth/adoptedchild.html

---

quote:

---

Therefore, it begs the question as to WHY, if adoption (instead of foster care or permanent guardianship) is truly in the adoptees' "best interests," does "an over-representation of adoptees" end up in prison --

​

regardless whether adopted as newborns or later in childhood,
regardless whether placed with abusive or loving adopters,
regardless whether they inherited "good genes" or "bad" genes from loving or abusive biological parents,
regardless whether of one race/nationality or another,
Togel SDY: Keluaran SDY, Pengeluaran SDY, Result SDY Hari Ini - Togel SDY

---

Some of the sources used are repeats, since they delt strictly with adoption, but you offered no response.

quote:

---

All I have done is ask you to support you assertions.

---

You lost. You have not offered any evidence for the contrary, probably because you don't have any (other than your flyer, that only you can see). If the statistics are different between adoptees and foster children, please, so me.But you won't. You just prefer to ignore any sources that are perfectly valid, and respond with absolutely nothing but with your opinion...and your flyer. I almost forgot about your flyer.However, even if your magical flyer is real, the adoption issue is general, not specific to your household, or county. If everything is gravy where you live, then there are no more adoption problems? Wheres the logic? Or do you just care about you.

quote:

---

If you would do some research

---

Coming from someone who has done none, I find this really funny.

quote:

---

How about you quit posting foster care info and how about we drop this since it is off topic.

---

How about you offer some references supporting your view, instead of offering up random flyers, and opinions. Whats the matter? Searched all day and came up with my information??

quote:

---

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?

---

Both. God created each animal after it's kind with enough genetic information to give us the variety we see today, and this information is slowly declining (generally speaking). And dog breeding is an example of genetic loss.

quote:

---

But none is needed to turn a Wolf into a Poodle?

---

Though I have no doubt in my mind that mutations did occur from wolf to poodle, no mutations are required.

quote:

---

If all the variety is via decay then how did you arrive at this conclusion?

---

quote:

---

If dogs evolved from wolves, which seems to be the case, then wolves must have had the capacity for this diversity somewhere in their genomes...

​

"These restrictive breeding practices reduce effective population size and increase overall genetic drift among domestic dogs, resulting in the loss of genetic diversity within breeds and greater divergence among them," writes Ostrander, who participated in a landmark study of the genomic relationship of 85 different dog breeds. "For example, variation among breeds accounts for 27% of total genetic variation, as opposed to 5-10% among human populations" (Parker et al., 2004).
http://www.nature.com/...icpage/genetics-of-dog-breeding-434

---

Game. Set. Match.

quote:

---

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 don't know how you arrived at it, but I do not, and cannot believe that all the information for the diverse life seen today came from a single source of any kind.God created each animal, to reproduce after IT'S KIND. If what I believe is true, then each pair of species that went into the ark would have had the genetic diversity to explain the various species of organisms and animals alive today.

quote:

---

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?

---

I have lost track of what this is about, but if you remind me, I will gladly.

quote:

---

I asked for you to show me the evidence that you have come to accept in our modern world

---

I have no idea what you are talking about, since I do not support darwins theory of evolution (in that a species can change into a new, usually more complex species given enough time).

quote:

---

You're not here to defend but you have no problem tossing out the assertions? Not very classy.

---

Fine fine. Where do you want to start? But I'm keeping my current topics up ahead of this.

quote:

---

the major unsupported claims will just have to rest on your good name and fine character?

---

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.

Yup goodbye, whatever that means.