Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 10:08 PM
26 online now:
AZPaul3 (1 member, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,563 Year: 3,600/19,786 Month: 595/1,087 Week: 185/212 Day: 27/25 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
456
7
89Next
Author Topic:   Biblical Creationism Requires Evolution
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 91 of 121 (454463)
02-07-2008 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by tesla
02-02-2008 1:19 AM


fox study & flight distance
proof: a study of foxes discovered that selecting and breeding by flight distance caused changes in color and attitude in a much much shorter time than originally thought. (wish i had a link to the study)

Try http://www.abc.net.au/animals/program1/factsheet5.htm

quote:
Belyaev's great insight was to suspect that the key factor was not size or reproduction, but behaviour. Tameness, he reasoned, was the single trait most likely to determine how well an animal adapted to living with humans. And because behaviour is influenced by an animal's neurochemistry, then selecting for tameness would over generations alter the balance of the body┬╣s hormones and neurotransmitters. This in turn could lead to a host of other seemingly unrelated consequences.

and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_domestic_dog#Domestication

quote:
The Promise of Food/Self Domestication: Early wolves would, as scavengers, be attracted to the bones and refuse dumps of human campsites. Dr. Raymond Coppinger of Hampshire College, Massachusetts, argues that those wolves that were more successful at interacting with humans would pass these traits onto their offspring, eventually creating wolves with a greater propensity to be domesticated. Coppinger believes that a behavioral characteristic called "flight distance" was crucial to the transformation from wild wolf to the ancestors of the modern dog. It represents how close an animal will allow humans (or anything else it perceives as dangerous) to get before it runs away.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by tesla, posted 02-02-2008 1:19 AM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by tesla, posted 02-07-2008 9:44 AM RAZD has responded

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 2134 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 92 of 121 (454475)
02-07-2008 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by RAZD
02-07-2008 7:57 AM


Re: fox study & flight distance
excellent:)

that was the study and points i was trying to address.

thanks razd :)


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides
This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by RAZD, posted 02-07-2008 7:57 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by RAZD, posted 02-10-2008 4:27 PM tesla has not yet responded

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 2134 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 93 of 121 (454476)
02-07-2008 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Larni
02-07-2008 3:21 AM


Re: correct. but misled.
The 'power' of choice primarily affects behvioural evolution. It could only increase another selection pressure for a structure to facilitate the behaviour. A minor difference but an important one.

well said

I'm just pointing out that these behavior choices are a form of selective breeding, that can change the entire form quite quickly.


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides
This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Larni, posted 02-07-2008 3:21 AM Larni has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by TheNaturalist, posted 02-08-2008 10:07 PM tesla has responded

  
TheNaturalist
Member (Idle past 3761 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-18-2008


Message 94 of 121 (454863)
02-08-2008 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by tesla
02-07-2008 9:48 AM


Re: correct. but misled.
OKAY

Everyone consider this:

Here, I will present two mechanisms for genetic change, both which seem to be relevant to your discussions.

1. Chromosomes are combined in certain ways; 23 total chromosome pairs means a lot of different genomes can exist. If no chromosome is to change(almost impossible) then, certain kinds of chromosomes would be passed down rather than some others, because of selective pressures and probability. Other kinds would be in the male or female's reproductive cells during their lives, but not combine to construct a genome, since again, these kinds of chromosomes would not be present in the construction of a genome.

Eventually, consider this: it is almost certain that chromosomes would continue to be lost; as by the mechanism I described just above. If there is to be no changing in the kinds of chromosomes (as assumed just above) then, since the number of kinds of chromosomes which would compose the genome would likely go down, there would be an imbreeding effect which would cause the downfall of the species, eventually.

This would be because 1. the species would become less able to adapt, of course, since less genetic variation allows for a lower number of different kinds of genotypes which can exist in a species, which allows for a less varied group of environments which the species can adapt to. Also, 2. with more and more genetic similarity between two parents, more liklihood for recessive traits developes; and since recessive traits are mostly bad, the overall health of the species would likely go down.

2. The second mechanism for evolutionary transition is mutation. This destroys the precise likliness of a chromosome, and destoys the above described effect.

Even though mutation only allows for change in the genetics of a species to happen at a very slow rate, it is fast enough to destroy the above effect of imbreeding.

You see?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by tesla, posted 02-07-2008 9:48 AM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by tesla, posted 02-08-2008 10:14 PM TheNaturalist has responded

    
tesla
Member (Idle past 2134 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 95 of 121 (454865)
02-08-2008 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by TheNaturalist
02-08-2008 10:07 PM


Re: correct. but misled.
Even though mutation only allows for change in the genetics of a species to happen at a very slow rate, it is fast enough to destroy the above effect of imbreeding.

wow..yeah i do see. cool :) i always figured inbreeding would just lead to ..extinction/idiocracy, but as you point out, over time, the variation would be enough that the slowly cancelled effects wouldn't be near as important in latter times as it is in the earlier, but that in the earlier a species could still survive and eventually be quite diverse.

cool :) thats just cool :)

i did interpret that right? right?

if yes, then in effect, one man, and one woman, could become nations of men and wemon.

Edited by tesla, : last sentence added.


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides
This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by TheNaturalist, posted 02-08-2008 10:07 PM TheNaturalist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by TheNaturalist, posted 02-09-2008 2:08 PM tesla has responded

  
TheNaturalist
Member (Idle past 3761 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-18-2008


Message 96 of 121 (454952)
02-09-2008 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by tesla
02-08-2008 10:14 PM


Re: correct. but misled.
but as you point out, over time, the variation would be enough that the slowly cancelled effects wouldn't be near as important in latter times as it is in the earlier, but that in the earlier a species could still survive and eventually be quite diverse.

cool thats just cool

i did interpret that right? right?

Actually, no; variation would not become greater over time, necessarily, nor would this have to be significant; its just that the variation would not decrease since even though chromosomes are constantly being lost(since not all chromosomes, of course, are passed down), mutation makes variation happen. Therefore, there would be two opposing forces of increasing variation verses decreasing variation.

And, the average genetic likliness of the species would almost certainly change, over time, unless it is unusually stable. With nearly inevitable environmental change and sexual selection(in some species) and random change which has any level of significance, but still causes change in the average genetic likliness of a species, this would happen.

if yes, then in effect, one man, and one woman, could become nations of men and wemon.

Again, the men and women would almost certainly become of different genetic character; which means they wouldnt really be able to avoid inbreeding, they would just have to evolve.

And, anyways, mutation is never fast enough to allow two closely-enough related members of a species to reproduce and not produce a deformed infant, such as a brother and sister, or mother-son or father-daughter(which by the way is freaking disgusting anyways, god must be a freaking sicko.....); though, relationships such as these would have to happen according to genesis.

Edited by TheNaturalist, : are you that fucking nosy? go fuck yourself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by tesla, posted 02-08-2008 10:14 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by tesla, posted 02-09-2008 2:40 PM TheNaturalist has responded

    
tesla
Member (Idle past 2134 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 97 of 121 (454961)
02-09-2008 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by TheNaturalist
02-09-2008 2:08 PM


Re: correct. but misled.
Actually, no; variation would not become greater over time, necessarily

why not? i mean, if a Chinese man has a child with a Irish woman, the child is quite diverse isn't it?

and a black man and white woman, isn't the child more diverse?

and over time, wouldn't the diversity expand?

isn't that the whole thesis of evolution, the changes and diversity over time?

And, anyways, mutation is never fast enough to allow two closely-enough related members of a species to reproduce and not produce a deformed infant, such as a brother and sister, or mother-son or father-daughter(which by the way is freaking disgusting anyways, god must be a freaking sicko.....); though, relationships such as these would have to happen according to genesis.

well right about the according to Genesis.

but in theory, if a man and woman had 6 children, and the children and mother and father all had more children, some would be defective, some would be "about" normal. then the cousins mate, and the diversity grows, until the tree is far enough down the genetics work.

like, if i trace my family tree father side..i can find a common ancestor on my mothers side, but there so many generations removed, its irrelevant.

whats your thoughts on this theory?


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides
This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by TheNaturalist, posted 02-09-2008 2:08 PM TheNaturalist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by TheNaturalist, posted 02-09-2008 3:14 PM tesla has responded

  
TheNaturalist
Member (Idle past 3761 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-18-2008


Message 98 of 121 (454969)
02-09-2008 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by tesla
02-09-2008 2:40 PM


Re: correct. but misled.
why not? i mean, if a Chinese man has a child with a Irish woman, the child is quite diverse isn't it?

and a black man and white woman, isn't the child more diverse?

and over time, wouldn't the diversity expand?

Not enough

isn't that the whole thesis of evolution, the changes and diversity over time?

Changes in the average genetics of a species yes; but not the average difference between an individual in the species and another

well right about the according to Genesis.

but in theory, if a man and woman had 6 children, and the children and mother and father all had more children, some would be defective, some would be "about" normal. then the cousins mate, and the diversity grows, until the tree is far enough down the genetics work.

like, if i trace my family tree father side..i can find a common ancestor on my mothers side, but there so many generations removed, its irrelevant.

whats your thoughts on this theory?

No; there would be too much genetic similarity between any of these members soon


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by tesla, posted 02-09-2008 2:40 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by tesla, posted 02-09-2008 3:18 PM TheNaturalist has responded

    
tesla
Member (Idle past 2134 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 99 of 121 (454970)
02-09-2008 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by TheNaturalist
02-09-2008 3:14 PM


Re: correct. but misled.
by the data I've viewed in the world as a whole, it would appear to me your conclusions are missing a variable in the original thesis of the balance.

perhaps the mutations can work for or against the other variables.

for me, your conclusions i cannot accept at heart, something is missing.

ill have to conclude no conclusion.


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides
This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by TheNaturalist, posted 02-09-2008 3:14 PM TheNaturalist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by TheNaturalist, posted 02-09-2008 5:44 PM tesla has responded

  
TheNaturalist
Member (Idle past 3761 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-18-2008


Message 100 of 121 (454997)
02-09-2008 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by tesla
02-09-2008 3:18 PM


Re: correct. but misled.
by the data I've viewed in the world as a whole, it would appear to me your conclusions are missing a variable in the original thesis of the balance.
perhaps the mutations can work for or against the other variables.

for me, your conclusions i cannot accept at heart, something is missing.

ill have to conclude no conclusion.

why?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by tesla, posted 02-09-2008 3:18 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by tesla, posted 02-09-2008 5:50 PM TheNaturalist has responded

    
tesla
Member (Idle past 2134 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 101 of 121 (455001)
02-09-2008 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by TheNaturalist
02-09-2008 5:44 PM


Re: correct. but misled.
life is to diverse. and evolution isn't supported.

there's tons of breeds of dogs, and apparently one initial start.

if only one man and one woman were alive, via inbreeding, its logical to me that man would survive. and eventually find diversity through evolution by exposure to different chemicals and minerals in different environments, as environments change.

overall, looking at evolution, there's many different things that can cause mutation. and to believe something would mutate only one way just doesn't seem logical.


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides
This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by TheNaturalist, posted 02-09-2008 5:44 PM TheNaturalist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by TheNaturalist, posted 02-09-2008 8:35 PM tesla has responded

  
TheNaturalist
Member (Idle past 3761 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-18-2008


Message 102 of 121 (455027)
02-09-2008 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by tesla
02-09-2008 5:50 PM


Re: correct. but misled.
correct, and i understand; but, inbreeding's negative effects would have to occur before so much variation could happen.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by tesla, posted 02-09-2008 5:50 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by tesla, posted 02-09-2008 8:39 PM TheNaturalist has responded

    
tesla
Member (Idle past 2134 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 103 of 121 (455028)
02-09-2008 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by TheNaturalist
02-09-2008 8:35 PM


Re: correct. but misled.
unless the environment is understood, i cannot accept that absolutely.

too many possible variables.

however, it is more probable that the first man, and first woman, did not have identical DNA.

but with identical DNA's you may be on to some truth. and i believe it should be further explored.

Edited by tesla, : No reason given.


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides
This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by TheNaturalist, posted 02-09-2008 8:35 PM TheNaturalist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by TheNaturalist, posted 02-09-2008 9:12 PM tesla has responded

  
TheNaturalist
Member (Idle past 3761 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-18-2008


Message 104 of 121 (455033)
02-09-2008 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by tesla
02-09-2008 8:39 PM


Re: correct. but misled.
however, it is more probable that the first man, and first woman, did not have identical DNA.

there was no "first man" or "first woman"; a species existed to change into the human species, with time


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by tesla, posted 02-09-2008 8:39 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by tesla, posted 02-09-2008 10:16 PM TheNaturalist has not yet responded

    
tesla
Member (Idle past 2134 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 105 of 121 (455048)
02-09-2008 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by TheNaturalist
02-09-2008 9:12 PM


Re: correct. but misled.
there was no "first man" or "first woman"; a species existed to change into the human species, with time

thats just a theory.

a guess is still a guess. with no conclusion.


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides
This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by TheNaturalist, posted 02-09-2008 9:12 PM TheNaturalist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by bluescat48, posted 02-10-2008 8:41 AM tesla has responded

  
Prev1
...
456
7
89Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019