Does the history of life require "macroevolution"?

The idea of the wall is national security, protection against illegals.

The doctrines of the RCC murdered 67 million people in their Inquisition. Some of their doctrines also prevent people from being saved.

The doctrines of Islam are all about murdering people.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Guess.

LOL

So you claim.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Guess.

Faith writes: JonF writes: That would be she, not he. In her seventies and consumed by hate and rage. Brown people, immigrants, Roman Catholics, homosexuals, liberals, mainstream anything, and probably others. All of them, in her words, "deserve to be hated". That is way way out of line. The Left has no ability to tell the difference between ideas and people.

So, not as politically correct as you would like huh? Too bad, Snowflake.

Faith writes: I think you need to be reported for this.

Sounds like political correctness run amuck to me.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Guess.

Report me if you will.

You've explicitly said that you hate all those groups because they deserve to be hated.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Guess.

I hate ideologies, and if you gave a link that would become clear. But Lefties really have no ability to think. That's why it's always all about people and not about the ideologies that tyrannically and murderously seek to rule the world, including their own Marxism.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Guess.

Faith writes: The doctrines of the RCC murdered 67 million people in their Inquisition

I believe the actual figures are about 3000 people over 300 years, less than 10 per year. By comparison atheist regimes such as Nazi Germany, Stalin, Mao, etc. murdered millions in far less time.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Guess.

The thousands often quoted refer to the Spanish Inquisition, but that was only a small part of the persecutions of non-Catholics by the RCC. The main reference for the high numbers killed by the RCC over 600 years is this study by David Plaisted which includes causes other than the Inquisition.

Cripplegate, a popular Protestant blog says:

However, if the term is used in a broad sense—to represent all Roman Catholic activity against non-Catholics—then the numbers rise dramatically. If the historian includes forms of torture and killing that did not involve a formal trial, along with religious wars and other forms of Catholic violence enacted against Protestants and other non-Catholics (in areas outside of Spain and Portugal), then one can easily speak in terms of millions of people who were killed.

And they mention Plaisted's study:

David Plaisted acknowledges that reality in his study: namely, that the really big estimates of Protestants killed by the papacy throughout European history necessarily include those who died in religious conflicts like the Thirty Years War.

50 million Christians and 17 million Jews and others over 600 years is quoted in various places, such as The History of Romanism by John Dowling, which is online.

The Inquisition is still going on in some Catholic countries, where the local Catholics persecute and murder the local Protestants. A few years ago there was a report of this among a rural Indian population of Mexico. I'll have to look it up.

And it was startling to me to hear about Garibaldi's discovery of people being tortured in dungeons in Rome when he conquered it, long after the supposed end of the official Inquisition.

So, you think the Roman Inquisition ended many centuries ago? Think again…

When Garibaldi’s armies marched into Rome in 1848, it was found that the Roman Catholic Church was walling-up, burning alive and also lowering victims – heretics and liberals, into giant ovens.  The Vatican Church dungeons, discovered there, were opened up for the public to see (interestingly similar to what was done after WW2 when the Nazi camps were also opened for public viewing?) Although I have seen, in a film, pictures of just what was displayed to the public, I can’t find anything on a www image search. Has there been an attempt to delete these events, and the photographic record, from history? These events and the pictures are detailed in a film by Adulum Productions called ‘Tares Among the Wheat’ (follow link) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wep1KFb3wns The film also details the discovery that the Inquisition was still in full operation at the Convent of Santo Domingo in Mexico, exposed by H Grattan Guinness in his book City of Seven Hills, (1891). The evidence was presented in an English Baptist Church publication called The Sword and the Trowel’, spring edition 1873 (see link below) The article was written by the ‘Prince of Preachers’ Mr Charles Spurgeon, minister of the Metropolitan Tabernacle, in South London. The Sword and the Trowel is still in publication – although todays reverent gentlemen at the Metropolitan Tabernacle are peculiarly reluctant to discuss this and other related matters.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Guess.

Faith writes: The main reference for the high numbers killed by the RCC over 600 years is this study by David Plaisted which includes causes other than the Inquisition.

David Plaisted? That computer scientist who thinks that he knows more about geology than those hundreds of thousands of geologists from all over the world put together? Now he's writing about recent human history, too? Sorry, not buying his stories.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Guess.

RAZD writes: ... then does any mutation that adds to the genetic diversity mean it is evolution outside the kind? So clearly RAZD's question can be answered in the negative.

Except you didn't really answer the question. Let's clarify.

Using the analogy of a light switch. A functioning on/off switch is the archetype. Broken always on and broken always off add diversity but not function. An on/off switch that transformed into a dimmer switch would be much more interesting but would still be a lightswitch.

So the issue is adding function, not just adding diversity?

Not all mutations are "switches" and some are change of function -- does that meet the criteria of "outside the kind?"

Also copying a gene switch, so that one version can be always maintain the original on/off function and the other be utilized to switch a new function on/off would add diversity and function -- does that meet the criteria of "outside the kind?"

Dog breeding provides a good example ...

... of artificial selection that ignores the functional role of natural selection in non-domestic species to improve the fitness of the species by removing the unfit.

"Small population size during domestication and strong artificial selection for breed-defining traits has unintentionally increased the numbers of deleterious genetic variants," the researchers write.'

You can also do the link with dB coding: [url=http://... ]the researchers write.[/url]

The deleterious effects of in-breeding are well known. Using an example with a priori known in-breeding genetic deleterious effects as an example for all evolution is disingenuous at best and intentionally misleading at worst. It's like a straw man argument that only addresses a portion of the story.

... Allow dogs to freely breed and there would be regression toward the mean to produce a range of mongrels. ...

While still maintained as a source of pets, the dogs would still be selected based on personal choice for desired traits, and as such would still not be totally free of artificial selection ... (ever been to a dog-pound? They often kill the "undesirable" ones, regardless of ability to survive and breed).

Are these hybrid mongrels healthier than the pure-breeds? Do they benefit from mixing traits of other dogs to become desirable pets?

Feral dogs would be free to interbreed with coyotes and wolves and their ability to survive and reproduce would depend on their fitness to their environment.

Are these feral hybrids healthier than the pure-breeds? Do they benefit from mixing traits of other dogs and canids to become fit to survive and breed in their environment?

Is a coywolf a new breed/variety/species? Do they benefit from mixing traits of other dogs and canids to become fit to survive and breed in their environment?

quote:

---

Coywolf (sometimes called woyote) is an informal term for a canid hybrid descended from coyotes and gray wolves. Hybridization between the two species is facilitated by the fact that they diverged relatively recently (around 6,000–117,000 years ago). Genomic studies indicate that nearly all North American gray wolf populations possess some degree of admixture with coyotes following a geographic cline, with the lowest levels occurring in Alaska, but the highest in Ontario and Quebec as well as Atlantic Canada.[1]

---

Are they members of the wolf kind, coyote kind or canid kind or a new kind? They seem to thrive in urbanized environments.

... but the product is still a dog. ...

Which is precisely what evolution predicts. Amazing.

Take a small founding population and restrict the gene flow into the population and you will have different frequencies of alleles in that population than in the general population. Allow it to reproduce unrestrained and new mutations will occur, many that normal artificial breeding control will eliminate from the breeding population because they will be outside the breed ...

But they will always be descendants of dogs wolves and hence always part of the dog wolf clade.

So clearly RAZD's question can be answered in the negative.

SO, we are working on defining "kind" by what it isn't? ... helpful.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : wolf clade includes all dogs

I don't know anything about Plaisted's claims in geology, but this study is well documented.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Guess.

Demonstrate that documentation.

(I don't buy hating ideologies and not hating the people. That's a feeble excuse to avoid the obvious. One way or another, your life is based on hate and fear.)

(Homosexuality is not an ideology.. What's your opinion on homosexuals and equal rights such as marriage? Don't bother, we know).

(Immigrants are not an ideology)

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Guess.

You "don't buy hating ideologies." You really need to learn the power of ideas. Islam says the world is to be conquered for Allah even if that means killing the "infidels" who don't follow Allah. That's an idea, an ideology, that has consquences in the real world. As all ideas do for good or bad.

The Bible calls homosexuality a sin and defines marriage as between a man and a woman. No hatred of anybody is involved in defending these biblical claims. Islam is a murdering ideology. No racism is involved in making this statement. Illegal immigration is a security issue, there's no racism involved except in the twisted minds of leftists.

You are a typical leftist that can't distinguish between ideas and people. I'm no racist or homophobe or xenophobe or any of the rest of the leftist lies, I address the ideologies that you turn into such personal failures in typical leftist fashion. You might as well be reading from the Alinsky rules or the Frankfurt School. It helps to work up emotion of course and to have an enemy to point to, which is the whole aim of the Left. Conservatives address issues, Leftists slander people.

Since this is off topic I'm not going to continue it here.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Guess.

Homosexuals are people, not an ideology. You hate them.

Immigrants, legal or illegal, are people. You hate them.

Liberals are people. You hate them.

I wouldn't expect you to acknowledge reality here, since you don't acknowlege it anywhere else.

You are a typical leftist that can't distinguish between ideas and people.

Well, I kind of think I'm a person. Do you agree? If so, why are your insults directed at a person?

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Guess.

I don't know anything about Plaisted's claims in geology, but this study is well documented.

Still waiting for your demonstration of that claim.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Guess.

Faith writes: Mutations make no difference.

Quite obviously, the 40 million mutations that separate chimps and humans make a big difference.