Evidence for a Young Earth (Not Billions of Years Old)

Subduction Zone · May 4, 2019

Justatruthseeker said:
I keep wondering how each new diversity loosing the ability to create more diversity is an increase in information.

Do you mean "losing"? At any rate your question is a strawman. There is no loss in the ability to create more diversity. Where did you get that crazy idea from? Citation needed.

But then like some you just can’t accept each of those diversities (breeds) is less capable of producing diversity. Why is reality so hard for evolutionists to accept?

Once again you need to support this clam. And we know that you can't. It is just another of your "because I said so" comments.

tas8831 · May 5, 2019

Justatruthseeker said:
I keep wondering how each new diversity loosing the ability to create more diversity is an increase in information.

But then like some you just can’t accept each of those diversities (breeds) is less capable of producing diversity. Why is reality so hard for evolutionists to accept?

I keep wondering where the genetic diversity for producing more diversity came about in the first place, given the creationist's continued claims that diversity arises via hybridization, then contradicts himself...

Shouldn't be surprised - this one thinks a 6000 bp sequence shows up randomly in a 3 billion bp genome just as readily as does a 4 base one...

Can't fix... well, you know. Ok, ok - Can't fix creationist.

tas8831 · May 5, 2019

Dan From Smithville said:
The claim that wolves have all the variation that we see in dogs already in their genome remains both silly and unsupported.

Especially when he has had his notion of dog-Kind variation demolished before...

Justatruthseeker · May 8, 2019

Dan From Smithville said:
You did not support any of your claims. NOT ONE. Your position does not exist except in your own mind.

You did not provide anything of the sort. There was no verification. There was no support. NOT ANY.

Then like all creationists YOU continue to ignore reality for the Creationist Fantasy World with your Easy Pass.

I feel very sorry for you. To have to lie and live in a fantasy world, because you cannot accept reality. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

How sad and pathetic. You have to lie in order to maintain your beliefs. You have to live in a fantasy world that is the only place the meaningless garbage you posted can pass as answers and support for your fictional position.

I understand. You are frightened. Answering my questions will blow your limited, fallacious worldview to pieces and you cannot take that. You have to act as lowdown as you do as a defense mechanism. I pity you, but that does not mean I am not going to correct you are let you get away with all this fabrication that is not answers to any of the questions I asked.

I felt bad for you when you had pretend you had not seen my questions, including the post that repeated them, included the link and the number of the original post the questions came from. It was pathetic. I could not believe a grown adult had to resort to that sort of immature nonsense. It was sickening to see someone crawl like that.

Only in your own mind does 100 different breeds versus 5 different breeds not equal less variation.....

Typical evolutionist, ignoring reality to keep your fantasy alive in your own mind.....

Had I seen your question I would have refuted them the first time as I refuted them when I saw their silliness. Such easy claims to refute too, one just has to look at the reality of 300 breeds from wolves and 5 from Poodles to defeat your sad attempt....

You still have yet to support your claim of oodles and oodles of Poodles......

What, couldn’t find those oodles and were left with merely five variations of them????

Typical evolutionist, always seeing things in their own mind that don’t exist....

It’s sad that the only recourse you have is to ignore the reality.....

Justatruthseeker · May 8, 2019

tas8831 said:
Especially when he has had his notion of dog-Kind variation demolished before...

So you all keep claiming yet can’t seem to produce any facts that actually refute my claims. All you all ever do is make unsupported claims like this one....

Over and over because rhetoric is all you all have, because the facts don’t support you...

Justatruthseeker · May 8, 2019

tas8831 said:
I keep wondering where the genetic diversity for producing more diversity came about in the first place, given the creationist's continued claims that diversity arises via hybridization, then contradicts himself...

Shouldn't be surprised - this one thinks a 6000 bp sequence shows up randomly in a 3 billion bp genome just as readily as does a 4 base one...

Can't fix... well, you know. Ok, ok - Can't fix creationist.

Read the Grants study in finches. You’ll find your answer.

“genetic variation from mating was two to three times greater at producing new genetic variation than was mutation.”

They found this result because mating affected several loci at once, every mating, unlike once in a blue moon mutation that if not detrimental or neutral, only affected a single loci.

Oh my bad, we’re you attempting to imply one needed mutations to produce variation?????

All one needs is reality, not the fantasy of mutations and millions of years......

Polymath257 · May 8, 2019

Justatruthseeker said:
Only in your own mind does 100 different breeds versus 5 different breeds not equal less variation.....

Um....huh?

Having 100 different breeds vs 5 different breeds is much, much *more* variation. We now have hundreds of breeds. Before there were just a few. That seems like MORE variation now.

Typical evolutionist, ignoring reality to keep your fantasy alive in your own mind.....

Had I seen your question I would have refuted them the first time as I refuted them when I saw their silliness. Such easy claims to refute too, one just has to look at the reality of 300 breeds from wolves and 5 from Poodles to defeat your sad attempt....

There were no poodles around before. Now there are. That is more variation.

Let's be clear here. Do you think the ancestral wolf population had all the genes for poodles already? Plus the genes for all the different varieties of dogs that now exist?

tas8831 · May 8, 2019

Justatruthseeker said:
Especially when he has had his notion of dog-Kind variation demolished before...

Click to expand...

So you all keep claiming yet can’t seem to produce any facts that actually refute my claims. All you all ever do is make unsupported claims like this one.....

Oh, OK:

Does science actually admit "design"?

JUSTA:
Told you 100 times, the same way we got dogs from wolves, interbreeding. But from above it seems you have not yet accepted the genetic facts about dogs, so I can understand your confusion.

[...]

Tell you what genius - if you think you are correct, and that dog breeding is analogous to getting all of the human 'races' we have today from a single breeding pair of middle easterners in just a few thousand years, how about you look at the wolf genome:

The wolf reference genome sequence ( Canis lupus lupus ) and its implications for Canis spp. population genomics

and compare it to a handful of dog breeds. Surely you should be able to find that the wolf genome possesses ALL of the alleles that these other breeds do.

Click to expand...

Its already been compared, didnt you read anything?

Dog family tree reveals how modern breeds came to be | CBC News

Ok, wow... UM...

A phylogenetic analysis does NOT seek to find the mutated alleles of the original kind...

My gosh...

I mean, did you even look at the picture on that webpage? No wolves were even in the analysis!

Did you bother to click the link to see the actual scientific paper? Of course not! More in a moment...

By golly, look how they all lead backwards to just two.................... Oh my, imagine that, but you shouldn't have to imagine, you were already told that.

LOL!!

Um.. No - 1. that cladogram only referred to modern domestic dog breeds, not ALL canids.
2. The root of the tree is unlabeled, so you cannot even claim that it 'goes back to 2'.

Also - I do enjoy demonstrating that you do not even read, much less understand, the things you reference.

If you had actually read the paper, you would have seen:

"Our analyses were designed to detect recent admixture; therefore, we were able to identify hybridization events that are described in written breed histories and stud-book records. Using the most reliably dated crosses that produced modern breeds, we established a linear relationship between the total length of haplotype sharing and the age of an admixture event, occurring between 35 and 160 years before present (ybp) "

So unless you think all dogs 'hybridized' away from a single species (impossible!) of wolf in 160 years... Well, never mind. Suffice it to say this is a huge fail on your part.

But I digress.

https://www.the-scientist.com/?arti...tle/Dogs-Have-a-Single-Genetic-Origin--Study/

Ok - I need to copy paste this line from justa here again:

"By golly, look how they all lead backwards to just two.................... Oh my, imagine that, but you shouldn't have to imagine, you were already told that."

Keep that in mind for a second - he says it traces back to just 2 -

“Given the high degree of sharing of sweeps [genetic signatures] between these ancient samples and modern samples, it seems clear that these dogs descend from a single domestication origin,” Adam Boyko, a geneticist at Cornell University who was not involved in the work, told The Washington Post in an email.

Great.

And?

From the actual research paper that press release was based on:

"By calibrating the mutation rate using our oldest dog, we narrow the timing of dog domestication to 20,000–40,000 years ago. "

Mutation rate? What?

UH-OH:

"Furthermore, we detect an additional ancestry component in the End Neolithic sample, consistent with admixture from a population of dogs located further east that may have migrated concomitant with steppe people associated with Late Neolithic and Early Bronze age cultures, such as the Yamnaya and Corded Ware culture."

So much for that "single wolf kind" magically diversifying via hybridization with... itself.. to magically create diversity by somehow mixing up its already present alleles...

Unless you want to posit at least 2 creation events of the original dog-kind?

And it gets worse for you, pally:

"Our results are consistent with continuity of a European-like genetic ancestry from modern dogs through the entire Neolithic period. However, the slightly displaced position of the ancient samples from the European cluster in the PCAs (particularly for CTC) suggests a complex history. We therefore performed unsupervised clustering analyses with ADMIXTURE (SNP array data; Supplementary Fig. 15) and NGSadmix (whole-genome data; Fig. 4 and Supplementary Fig. 16) (Supplementary Note 9) and found that, unlike contemporary European village dogs, all three ancient genomes possess a significant ancestry component that is present in modern Southeast Asian dogs. This component appears only at very low levels in a minority of modern European village dogs. Furthermore, CTC harbours an additional component that is found predominantly in modern Indian village as well as in Central Asian (Afghan, Mongolian and Nepalese), and Middle Eastern (Saudi Arabian and Qatari) dogs (concordant with its position in the PCA), as well as some wolf admixture."

So, sure, MODERN European dog breeds can be traced back to a GROUP of dogs, but ALL MODERN dogs show a MIXTURE of genetic inputs from multiple earlier dog populations.

Looks like it is back to the drawing board for your "hybridization all the way down" farce.

I also suggest you stop relying on press releases, and even more strongly suggest you stop pretending to make scientific arguments until after you take a few years-worth of college classes on the relevant science.

MASSIVE FAIL.

I mean please, they can trace their lineage genetically all the way back to those wolves. Your arguments are false and inconsistent with DNA data. Accept the facts and get over it already....

Pity that your 'references' completely contradict your layman's conclusion.

The saddest part is that the Dunning-Kruger effect is so powerful in you that you will actually think you somehow proved your point and DIDN'T, yet again, make a fool of yourself.

Like that?

tas8831 · May 8, 2019

Justatruthseeker said:
Read the Grants study in finches. You’ll find your answer.

“genetic variation from mating was two to three times greater at producing new genetic variation than was mutation.”

They found this result because mating affected several loci at once, every mating, unlike once in a blue moon mutation that if not detrimental or neutral, only affected a single loci.

Oh my bad, we’re you attempting to imply one needed mutations to produce variation?????

All one needs is reality, not the fantasy of mutations and millions of years......

You keep using that one out of context/misinterpreted quote over and over despite the fact that I corrected your naivete on this issue months (years?) ago...

What does that say about your character?

Here is but one example, from Sept. 2018:

let me repeat..... Again, I am not the one trying to convince the readers that the correct interpretation is: "a mutation is two to three orders of magnitude greater at producing new genetic variation than mutations........"

Go ahead, defend your stance... or can't you?????

I will defend it by pasting a quote from the very paper you have repeatedly cited to naively and ignorantly claim that alleles are made during reproducing, or whatever child's notions you put forth:

"We may add one more difference between a mutated allele and one introduced by hybridization. The mutated allele has been altered randomly, whereas the one introduced by hybridization has been shaped by natural selection, albeit in a differentiated genome (deleterious mutations have been purged and any beneficial mutations gone to fixation by selection)."

And here is more demolition of your naive folk genetics notions - in part from YOUR OWN links:

...from your Wiki link:

"For example, a single-base mutation in the APOE (apolipoprotein E) gene is associated with a lower risk for Alzheimer's disease."

Why did your SNP wiki page mention this - that an SNP in a gene does something when you have declared that alleles are really just one letter difference that was already there?

When I clicked on the 'gene' link on your SNP wiki page, I strangely saw the following:

"Genes can acquire mutations in their sequence, leading to different variants, known as alleles, in the population"

and - oh my stars - the wiki page on "gene" has a WHOLE SECTION dedicated to mutation! And - gulp! - it discusses them in reference to the creation of NEW ALLELES! I mean, ALLIES!

Genes can acquire mutations in their sequence, leading to different variants, known as alleles, in the population.

And - oh my, the vapors are a-comin' - the Google takes me to a site that makes this outrageous claim:

How are new alleles created?
Occasionally, DNA mutations occur in germ cells – cells destined to become eggs or sperm. In this case, the DNA mutation is copied into every new cell of the growing embryo following fertilisation. In this way, new DNA variants are passed on to the next generation. If the mutation affects a gene, it will result in a new version of that gene – a new allele.

Please correct these lies! Tell the TRUTH that alleles are just a different letter that was already there!

Then please tell the Grants what an allele REALLY is! Won't you? Because the Grants and their wicked co-conspirators say this about alleles:

"...the [allele] introduced by hybridization has been shaped by natural selection, albeit in a differentiated genome (deleterious mutations have been purged and any beneficial mutations gone to fixation by selection)."

And to think about this great offense - it is found in the very link you use to claim the opposite! They must be part of the conspiracy to hide the truth!

Now please provide evidence - other than you repeated assertions - that alleles are created via God-magic, or via reproduction as you have claimed.

And another, from May, 2018:

Will it finally shut you up?

https://www.researchgate.net/public...tion_on_Darwin's_finches_Evolution_48_297-316

“For example, in Darwin's finches, 'New additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization is estimated to be two to three orders of magnitude greater than that introduced by mutation' (Grant & Grant, 1994).”

OK.... Here is what the seeker had written, to which I had replied before:

"And yet a C inserted where a T was is exactly single-nucleotide polymorphism, which we have already found in another thread is caused by random changes during development, or as the Grants discovered, was caused by interactions during interbreeding, that affected several loci at the same time."

Shall I point out the funny bits? OK -

"And yet a C inserted where a T was is exactly single-nucleotide polymorphism"

Yes, that is correct. Good so far.

" which we have already found in another thread is caused by random changes during development"

Ummm..... No....

Mutations are not introduced "during development", they are introduced during DNA replication, at least the ones that are passed on.

"or as the Grants discovered, was caused by interactions during interbreeding, that affected several loci at the same time."

Wow...

Let me try to interpret that - The Grants discovered that SNPs are caused by interbreeding, and that this introduction of SNPs during interbreeding affected several loci at a time.

Given that justa is ignorant of the relevant terminology and the relevant science, I can cut him a tiny bit of slack (his unwarranted certainty on matters he should admit to now knowing much about drops him down several spots in my ranking, but for this post, I will be magnanimous). He may actually be referring to pleiotropy, which is a real thing, but in a crude and uninformed manner, so I will let the the last part of the quote go.

But the first part?

Nope.

SNPs (mutations) are not "caused by interactions during interbreeding."

Sorry Charlie, your astonishment at me not accepting your "truth" is due to the fact that your "truth" is ignorance-based fantasy, and you cannot bring yourself to admit it.

And the supposed support?

“For example, in Darwin's finches, 'New additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization is estimated to be two to three orders of magnitude greater than that introduced by mutation' (Grant & Grant, 1994).”

Justa seems to think that this 'genetic variance' is the result of SNPs generated during interbreeding.

Nope - genetic variance is, generally, the observed interactions between alleles. Not the generation of alleles via SNPs during interbreeding. The interbreeding recombines different alleles from different populations and alters phenotype.

Poor justa... He tries so hard.

There are several more, and not just from me - several people corrected your naive, shallow understanding of this stuff on CForums. But you, being a creationist with no background in biology or genetics, just cannot allow that you might actually be wrong.

Why is that?

And that claim about courts using entire genomes, "loci by loci" - you still think I did not demolish that idiocy with facts, don't you?
And you still think molecular phylogenetics just searches for random 4 base pair bits of sequence to make an alignment, don't you?

How can you really still think these absurdly, idiotically wrong things? Is it some kind of weird martyrdom thing? I don't get it.

tas8831 · May 8, 2019

Polymath257 said:
Do you think the ancestral wolf population had all the genes for poodles already? Plus the genes for all the different varieties of dogs that now exist?

He does. And he is not alone. But none of the creationist advocates - all lacking basic a understanding of genetics - of a 'front loaded genome' can explain how it was that all of these 'un-used alleles' were kept intact yet unused until they were, somehow, deemed to be needed to make a new breed. For no apparent reason.

Dan From Smithville · May 8, 2019

Justatruthseeker said:
Only in your own mind does 100 different breeds versus 5 different breeds not equal less variation.....

You really hate being wrong so much that you just start making things up don't you.

I never said that 100 different breeds of dog had less variation that five breeds of dog. What you have claimed is that the variation in dogs already existed in wolves. Unfounded and unsupported by you. You also claim no new variation can arise in poodles or huskies. Also unfounded and unsupported by you.

Justatruthseeker said:
Typical evolutionist, ignoring reality to keep your fantasy alive in your own mind.....

When you go all to pieces you really go all to pieces. Try staying on point and use evidence to support your position and not personal attacks. I know. I know. It is the creationist way, but shouldn't you, as a Christian, at least try to be better?

Justatruthseeker said:
Had I seen your question I would have refuted them the first time as I refuted them when I saw their silliness. Such easy claims to refute too, one just has to look at the reality of 300 breeds from wolves and 5 from Poodles to defeat your sad attempt....

You had a half a dozen or more opportunities to address my questions before that little charade you went through trying to avoid addressing them Now here we are and you still have not refuted anything.

Questions are not claims. Looks like you are having some comprehension issues and confusion with basic language skills.

Justatruthseeker said:
You still have yet to support your claim of oodles and oodles of Poodles......

Oodles and oodles of poodles is your claim, but you are correct, you have not supported the claim.

Justatruthseeker said:
What, couldn’t find those oodles and were left with merely five variations of them????

It is not my responsibility to support your oodles and oodles of poodles claim.

Justatruthseeker said:
Typical evolutionist, always seeing things in their own mind that don’t exist....

I asked questions, you avoided answering the questions. You still are. It is all very sad to watch you flame out.

Justatruthseeker said:
It’s sad that the only recourse you have is to ignore the reality.....

It is sad that you are under some compulsion to support your claim with lies and personal attacks.

Provide the evidence to support your claim that all dog variation already existed in wolves.

Provide the evidence to support your claim that there is no new variation arising in dogs.

Provide the evidence to support your claim that evolution is reliant on variation that arises through mutation only and does not occur through the shuffling of existing variation.

This is all you had to do or concede that you were blowing smoke. You do not appear to possess the character to do either. You certainly have not done either, even though you really should do the latter of the two, but you will continue your pathetic little game instead. Congratulations.

Dan From Smithville · May 8, 2019

tas8831 said:
He does. And he is not alone. But none of the creationist advocates - all lacking basic a understanding of genetics - of a 'front loaded genome' can explain how it was that all of these 'un-used alleles' were kept intact yet unused until they were, somehow, deemed to be needed to make a new breed. For no apparent reason.

He is a hoot. Most of his posts have just degraded down to personal attacks and logical fallacies. His presence here has completely fallen apart.

Dan From Smithville · May 8, 2019

tas8831 said:
You keep using that one out of context/misinterpreted quote over and over despite the fact that I corrected your naivete on this issue months (years?) ago...

What does that say about your character?

Here is but one example, from Sept. 2018:

I will defend it by pasting a quote from the very paper you have repeatedly cited to naively and ignorantly claim that alleles are made during reproducing, or whatever child's notions you put forth:

"We may add one more difference between a mutated allele and one introduced by hybridization. The mutated allele has been altered randomly, whereas the one introduced by hybridization has been shaped by natural selection, albeit in a differentiated genome (deleterious mutations have been purged and any beneficial mutations gone to fixation by selection)."

And here is more demolition of your naive folk genetics notions - in part from YOUR OWN links:

...from your Wiki link:

"For example, a single-base mutation in the APOE (apolipoprotein E) gene is associated with a lower risk for Alzheimer's disease."

Why did your SNP wiki page mention this - that an SNP in a gene does something when you have declared that alleles are really just one letter difference that was already there?

When I clicked on the 'gene' link on your SNP wiki page, I strangely saw the following:

"Genes can acquire mutations in their sequence, leading to different variants, known as alleles, in the population"

and - oh my stars - the wiki page on "gene" has a WHOLE SECTION dedicated to mutation! And - gulp! - it discusses them in reference to the creation of NEW ALLELES! I mean, ALLIES!

Genes can acquire mutations in their sequence, leading to different variants, known as alleles, in the population.

And - oh my, the vapors are a-comin' - the Google takes me to a site that makes this outrageous claim:

How are new alleles created?
Occasionally, DNA mutations occur in germ cells – cells destined to become eggs or sperm. In this case, the DNA mutation is copied into every new cell of the growing embryo following fertilisation. In this way, new DNA variants are passed on to the next generation. If the mutation affects a gene, it will result in a new version of that gene – a new allele.

Please correct these lies! Tell the TRUTH that alleles are just a different letter that was already there!

Then please tell the Grants what an allele REALLY is! Won't you? Because the Grants and their wicked co-conspirators say this about alleles:

"...the [allele] introduced by hybridization has been shaped by natural selection, albeit in a differentiated genome (deleterious mutations have been purged and any beneficial mutations gone to fixation by selection)."

And to think about this great offense - it is found in the very link you use to claim the opposite! They must be part of the conspiracy to hide the truth!

Now please provide evidence - other than you repeated assertions - that alleles are created via God-magic, or via reproduction as you have claimed.
And another, from May, 2018:

OK.... Here is what the seeker had written, to which I had replied before:

"And yet a C inserted where a T was is exactly single-nucleotide polymorphism, which we have already found in another thread is caused by random changes during development, or as the Grants discovered, was caused by interactions during interbreeding, that affected several loci at the same time."

Shall I point out the funny bits? OK -

"And yet a C inserted where a T was is exactly single-nucleotide polymorphism"

Yes, that is correct. Good so far.

" which we have already found in another thread is caused by random changes during development"

Ummm..... No....

Mutations are not introduced "during development", they are introduced during DNA replication, at least the ones that are passed on.

"or as the Grants discovered, was caused by interactions during interbreeding, that affected several loci at the same time."

Wow...

Let me try to interpret that - The Grants discovered that SNPs are caused by interbreeding, and that this introduction of SNPs during interbreeding affected several loci at a time.

Given that justa is ignorant of the relevant terminology and the relevant science, I can cut him a tiny bit of slack (his unwarranted certainty on matters he should admit to now knowing much about drops him down several spots in my ranking, but for this post, I will be magnanimous). He may actually be referring to pleiotropy, which is a real thing, but in a crude and uninformed manner, so I will let the the last part of the quote go.

But the first part?

Nope.

SNPs (mutations) are not "caused by interactions during interbreeding."

Sorry Charlie, your astonishment at me not accepting your "truth" is due to the fact that your "truth" is ignorance-based fantasy, and you cannot bring yourself to admit it.

And the supposed support?

“For example, in Darwin's finches, 'New additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization is estimated to be two to three orders of magnitude greater than that introduced by mutation' (Grant & Grant, 1994).”

Justa seems to think that this 'genetic variance' is the result of SNPs generated during interbreeding.

Nope - genetic variance is, generally, the observed interactions between alleles. Not the generation of alleles via SNPs during interbreeding. The interbreeding recombines different alleles from different populations and alters phenotype.

Poor justa... He tries so hard.

There are several more, and not just from me - several people corrected your naive, shallow understanding of this stuff on CForums. But you, being a creationist with no background in biology or genetics, just cannot allow that you might actually be wrong.

Why is that?

And that claim about courts using entire genomes, "loci by loci" - you still think I did not demolish that idiocy with facts, don't you?
And you still think molecular phylogenetics just searches for random 4 base pair bits of sequence to make an alignment, don't you?

How can you really still think these absurdly, idiotically wrong things? Is it some kind of weird martyrdom thing? I don't get it.

It does not look like he is even trying to answer you anymore. He just sees your posts and runs.

Dan From Smithville · May 8, 2019

Justatruthseeker said:
Read the Grants study in finches. You’ll find your answer.

“genetic variation from mating was two to three times greater at producing new genetic variation than was mutation.”

They found this result because mating affected several loci at once, every mating, unlike once in a blue moon mutation that if not detrimental or neutral, only affected a single loci.

Oh my bad, we’re you attempting to imply one needed mutations to produce variation?????

All one needs is reality, not the fantasy of mutations and millions of years......

You must love to see this refuted just to make it through your day, since you keep putting it up and it keeps getting shot down.

It is your bad, but that is only because you know scratch about evolution, genetics or science.

Dan From Smithville · May 8, 2019

tas8831 said:
Especially when he has had his notion of dog-Kind variation demolished before...

It is a strange behavior to watch someone that cannot defend what they post, just continually throwing refuted claims back up over an over. It bears a striking resemblance to a pathological condition. I might be concerned enough to recommend he seek help, except that it is a behavior displayed by every creationist. It must arise from some mutant allele.

tas8831 · May 9, 2019

Dan From Smithville said:
It is a strange behavior to watch someone that cannot defend what they post, just continually throwing refuted claims back up over an over. It bears a striking resemblance to a pathological condition. I might be concerned enough to recommend he seek help, except that it is a behavior displayed by every creationist.

Indeed - it is sad to watch. Well, sort of ...

It must arise from some mutant allele.

Surely one produced via breeding.... Because that is how alleles are made, not by mutations.

Dan From Smithville · May 9, 2019

tas8831 said:
Indeed - it is sad to watch. Well, sort of ...

Surely one produced via breeding.... Because that is how alleles are made, not by mutations.

Maybe that is his real problem. He hasn't made any alleles in a long while.

Justatruthseeker · May 12, 2019

Polymath257 said:
Um....huh?

Having 100 different breeds vs 5 different breeds is much, much *more* variation. We now have hundreds of breeds. Before there were just a few. That seems like MORE variation now.

Only because you fail to understand that the genome has gone from more variation possible to less. That’s why you ignore that the original canine could produce 100 breeds but Poodles can only produce 5.

But keep trying to misrepresent reality, maybe you’ll convince yourself .

There were no poodles around before. Now there are. That is more variation.

Because the original had that variation within it. And now Poodles can only produce 5 because they have lost information not gained it.

Let's be clear here. Do you think the ancestral wolf population had all the genes for poodles already? Plus the genes for all the different varieties of dogs that now exist?

Without a doubt. You got over 100 breeds from those ancestral wolves. But as you keep ignoring Poodles can only produce 5......

Because Poodles have lost information only the ancestral wolves contained thru deleterious mutations.....

Subduction Zone · May 12, 2019

Justatruthseeker said:
Only because you fail to understand that the genome has gone from more variation possible to less. That’s why you ignore that the original canine could produce 100 breeds but Poodles can only produce 5.

But keep trying to misrepresent reality, maybe you’ll convince yourself .

Because the original had that variation within it. And now Poodles can only produce 5 because they have lost information not gained it.

Without a doubt. You got over 100 breeds from those ancestral wolves. But as you keep ignoring Poodles can only produce 5......

Because Poodles have lost information only the ancestral wolves contained thru deleterious mutations.....

What makes you think that poodles can only produce five breeds? You forgot one of the key elements in evolution.

Here are a couple of questions for your, how long have "dogs" existed? How long have "poodles" existed?

Justatruthseeker · May 12, 2019

Subduction Zone said:
What makes you think that poodles can only produce five breeds? You forgot one of the key elements in evolution.

Here are a couple of questions for your, how long have "dogs" existed? How long have "poodles" existed?

Because 5 breeds is all that’s been produced from them. Shall we now discuss fantasy instead of facts????

Yes, I am sure you all prefer what if’s and maybes instead of cold hard facts. Most evolutionists rely on that for their entire belief system.

Evidence for a Young Earth (Not Billions of Years Old)

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Think & Care

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Recently discovered my planet of origin.

Recently discovered my planet of origin.

Recently discovered my planet of origin.

Recently discovered my planet of origin.

Recently discovered my planet of origin.

Well-Known Member

Recently discovered my planet of origin.

Active Member

Veteran Member

Active Member