"1,000 Scientists Sign Up to Dissent from Darwin"

[exchemist]

Every so-called beneficial mutation comes with harmful side affects..... Most impairing some other function in the host....

Evidence?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Nope. There is no guarantee that any will have a mutation to live in the cooler environment. But if there are some, they will be selected upon and if there aren't any, say it with me "extinction".
Think about that. If every species already had all the needed mutations no matter the environment change, there would be no species going extinct.

And yet we got dogs bred for desert environments and dogs bred for winter environments, all from the same wolf stock. Reality does not seem to match your claims.... At no time during the breeding process did we have to wait for nature to select for a mutation. Instead we simply bred for the desired trait. As rabbits living in cooler climates will tend to breed with other rabbits that have traits for cooler environments, and vice versa. As the Chinese tended to breed for traits that in the end made them Chinese... or African.... or Caucasian..... They will go extinct when they become so inbred that they are no longer viable because mutations will continue to damage the genome....

Think of the Liger. It has reached the end of it's viability with its own species and so will become extinct as soon as we stop breeding for Ligers..... The end of the gene pool is not the rise of a new species, but extinction from non-viability.....

 

[sealchan]

Well, there is an element in the US that are solidly opposed to science and education.. Its definitely sad, but not surprising to me.

There are multiple reasons for this but I think that the Information age is causing so much social upheaval, via inter communication and access to knowledge of others, for the more "reclusively oriented" communities that there is a real market for authorized ignorance, indulgences of a sort.

 

[exchemist]

And yet we got dogs bred for desert environments and dogs bred for winter environments, all from the same wolf stock. Reality does not seem to match your claims.... At no time during the breeding process did we have to wait for nature to select for a mutation. Instead we simply bred for the desired trait. As rabbits living in cooler climates will tend to breed with other rabbits that have traits for cooler environments, and vice versa. As the Chinese tended to breed for traits that in the end made them Chinese... or African.... or Caucasian..... They will go extinct when they become so inbred that they are no longer viable because mutations will continue to damage the genome....

Think of the Liger. It has reached the end of it's viability with its own species and so will become extinct as soon as we stop breeding for Ligers..... The end of the gene pool is not the rise of a new species, but extinction from non-viability.....

When you breed, you are selecting according to the natural variation in the animal population. These variations are due to genetic differences between individuals, which arise via mutation. So you are selecting mutations when you do this.

 

[sooda]

There are multiple reasons for this but I think that the Information age is causing so much social upheaval, via inter communication and access to knowledge of others, for the more "reclusively oriented" communities that there is a real market for authorized ignorance, indulgences of a sort.

You sure are sympathetic and charitable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And yet we got dogs bred for desert environments and dogs bred for winter environments, all from the same wolf stock. Reality does not seem to match your claims.... At no time during the breeding process did we have to wait for nature to select for a mutation. Instead we simply bred for the desired trait. As rabbits living in cooler climates will tend to breed with other rabbits that have traits for cooler environments, and vice versa. As the Chinese tended to breed for traits that in the end made them Chinese... or African.... or Caucasian..... They will go extinct when they become so inbred that they are no longer viable because mutations will continue to damage the genome....

Think of the Liger. It has reached the end of it's viability with its own species and so will become extinct as soon as we stop breeding for Ligers..... The end of the gene pool is not the rise of a new species, but extinction from non-viability.....

Your posts keep indicating that you do not even do minimal research. New genes have arisen in dogs. Not only do we know which ones they are we know how they work:

http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/on-b...eals-genetic-changes-caused-by-domestication/

If you will read the article you will see that there are new traits.


And ligers are not a species. That makes your claims about them nonsensical. It is also evidence for new gene pools since tigers and lions are speciated almost completely as shown by the liger.


Do we have to go over the steps of speciatiion again?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Evidence?

Let's look at the mutation that affected the CCR5 segment and has made them immune from AIDS. This is great if exposed to the Aids Virus, but it also made them more susceptible to the West Nile Virus and Hepatitis C. So the mutation for one resistance came at a trade off in susceptibility for other diseases.

http://jem.rupress.org/content/jem/203/1/35.full.pdf

The problem is most mutations do not occur in a live or die scenario, so harmful effects often go unnoticed....

This has also been shown in bacteria that gained the resistance to antibiotics. When antibiotics were present they fared well. But when the antibiotics were removed, they fared less well than the bacteria without mutations because the mutation came with the cost of altering a protein required for nutrient acquisition....

What you think is a beneficial mutation in the restricted settings of a lab, usually turns out to not be beneficial at all when the conditions within the lab are removed....

 

[sooda]

Your posts keep indicating that you do not even do minimal research. New genes have arisen in dogs. Not only do we know which ones they are we know how they work:

http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/on-b...eals-genetic-changes-caused-by-domestication/

If you will read the article you will see that there are new traits.


And ligers are not a species. That makes your claims about them nonsensical. It is also evidence for new gene pools since tigers and lions are speciated almost completely as shown by the liger.


Do we have to go over the steps of speciatiion again?

A species is a group of organisms that only interbreed within that group under natural conditions and whose offspring are both viable and fertile. As ligers are infertile they cannot interbreed and are therefore not regarded as a species.

https://www.turpentinecreek.org/hybrid-species-ligers-and-tigons/

 

[Justatruthseeker]

When you breed, you are selecting according to the natural variation in the animal population. These variations are due to genetic differences between individuals, which arise via mutation. So you are selecting mutations when you do this.

Not true in the Least. Apparently you are unaware of the Russian Silver Fox experiment in which they simply bred foxes for tameability. The foxes morphology began to change, taking on the characteristics we see in dogs from muzzle size, drooping ears, wagging and curling tails to shortening of the legs.... They did find one mutation, which simply changed the color on the fur pattern......

I'm not claiming mutations don't affect things once in a blue moon, they are simply irrelevant in the larger scheme of things when breeding and backcrossing affects several loci at the same time..... Those variations in dogs no more came from mutations than the variations in the silver foxes did. Those possibilities already existed within the genome....

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's look at the mutation that affected the CCR5 segment and has made them immune from AIDS. This is great if exposed to the Aids Virus, but it also made them more susceptible to the West Nile Virus and Hepatitis C. So the mutation for one resistance came at a trade off in susceptibility for other diseases.

http://jem.rupress.org/content/jem/203/1/35.full.pdf

The problem is most mutations do not occur in a live or die scenario, so harmful effects often go unnoticed....

This has also been shown in bacteria that gained the resistance to antibiotics. When antibiotics were present they fared well. But when the antibiotics were removed, they fared less well than the bacteria without mutations because the mutation came with the cost of altering a protein required for nutrient acquisition....

What you think is a beneficial mutation in the restricted settings of a lab, usually turns out to not be beneficial at all when the conditions within the lab are removed....

You might be getting it. Whether a mutation is beneficial or harmful is usually dependent upon the environment that they occur in. Most creationists demand something that does not exist when they want to see a beneficial mutation. They want one that is beneficial in all environments and that is not what the theory of evolution claims occurs. It is amazing that creationist so often understand the theory of evolution so poorly that they demand to see something that would refute the theory as "proof".

 

[Justatruthseeker]

A species is a group of organisms that only interbreed within that group under natural conditions and whose offspring are both viable and fertile. As ligers are infertile they cannot interbreed and are therefore not regarded as a species.

https://www.turpentinecreek.org/hybrid-species-ligers-and-tigons/

And yet you will then ignore your own definition and refuse to consider the Tiger and Lion as the same species, even if the femaole Liger is both fertile and can produce offspring with either of the parents......

Ligers are not infertile. Several female Ligers have given birth when mated back to Tigers or Lions. But hey, it only took about 40 years of claiming Lions and Tigers couldn't mate before Ligers were produced. They claimed they were separate species because they couldn't interbreed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not true in the Least. Apparently you are unaware of the Russian Silver Fox experiment in which they simply bred foxes for tameability. The foxes morphology began to change, taking on the characteristics we see in dogs from muzzle size, drooping ears, wagging and curling tails to shortening of the legs.... They did find one mutation, which simply changed the color on the fur pattern......

I'm not claiming mutations don't affect things once in a blue moon, they are simply irrelevant in the larger scheme of things when breeding and backcrossing affects several loci at the same time..... Those variations in dogs no more came from mutations than the variations in the silver foxes did. Those possibilities already existed within the genome....

Wrong again. There are some changes that can occur rapidly merely through selection. But studying the genome demonstrates that new traits have arisen. You are making the error of using all or nothing thinking again. Just because some changes can come about by selection only does not mean that all changes arose from selection only. If you want to claim that the burden of proof would be upon you. One example is not even close to being "proof".

 

[Subduction Zone]

And yet you will then ignore your own definition and refuse to consider the Tiger and Lion as the same species, even if the femaole Liger is both fertile and can produce offspring with either of the parents......

Ligers are not infertile. Several female Ligers have given birth when mated back to Tigers or Lions. But hey, it only took about 40 years of claiming Lions and Tigers couldn't mate before Ligers were produced. They claimed they were separate species because they couldn't interbreed.

The female liger is greatly reduced in fertility. It is not a viable species. The males are sterile.

Once again, do we need to go over the steps of speciation?

Need I remind you that you are once again using all or nothing thinking. That almost never works with biology.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You might be getting it. Whether a mutation is beneficial or harmful is usually dependent upon the environment that they occur in. Most creationists demand something that does not exist when they want to see a beneficial mutation. They want one that is beneficial in all environments and that is not what the theory of evolution claims occurs. It is amazing that creationist so often understand the theory of evolution so poorly that they demand to see something that would refute the theory as "proof".

But it's irrelevant, since ordinary mating is two to three times greater at producing new genetic variation than are mutations.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The female liger is greatly reduced in fertility. It is not a viable species. The males are sterile.

Liger - Wikipedia

"The fertility of hybrid big cat females is well documented across a number of different hybrids."

Once again, do we need to go over the steps of speciation?

why, you'll just ignore what you say when we get to finches humping like rabbits right in front of their eyes and producing fertile offspring......

 

[Subduction Zone]

But it's irrelevant, since ordinary mating is two to three times greater at producing new genetic variation than are mutations.....

So what? Once again this is "all or nothing" thinking. One cannot ignore the fact that new traits do arise from mutations. That is key to speciation. It is one way we can tell which member a particular variant is at times. We do not have to try to breed if we know that speciation has occurred. We can look for marker genes.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So what? Once again this is "all or nothing" thinking. One cannot ignore the fact that new traits do arise from mutations. That is key to speciation. It is one way we can tell which member a particular variant is at times. We do not have to try to breed if we know that speciation has occurred. We can look for marker genes.

What speciation?????

Is this where you tell me the same creature with the same marker genes that inhabits different ecosystems is a separate species despite telling me we can tell by the marker genes?????

 

[Subduction Zone]

Liger - Wikipedia

"The fertility of hybrid big cat females is well documented across a number of different hybrids."



why, you'll just ignore what you say when we get to finches humping like rabbits right in front of their eyes and producing fertile offspring......

I see that you do not understand your own source again:

"The liger is a hybrid offspring of a male lion (Panthera leo) and a female tiger (Panthera tigris). The liger has parents in the same genus but of different species. "

As I said the female is not infertile, but is nearly so:

"
The fertility of hybrid big cat females is well documented across a number of different hybrids. This is in accordance with Haldane's rule: in hybrids of animals whose sex is determined by sex chromosomes, if one sex is absent, rare or sterile, it is the heterogametic sex (the one with two different sex chromosomes e.g. X and Y).

According to Wild Cats of the World (1975) by C. A. W. Guggisberg, ligers and tigons were long thought to be sterile; however, in 1943, a fifteen-year-old hybrid between a lion and an 'Island' tiger was successfully mated with a lion at the Munich Hellabrunn Zoo. The female cub, though of delicate health, was raised to adulthood.[21]

In September 2012, the Russian Novosibirsk Zoo announced the birth of a "liliger", which is the offspring of a liger mother and a lion father. The cub was named Kiara.[22]"

The female cub made it to adulthood. In captivity. In the wild the line would have ended there. And she appears to be sterile. Though they can have young it is still a dead end. You want to stop too early. One must see what happens to a population and since no population can be developed they are by definition not a species.

Try not to quote out of context. It is not a proper way to deal with an article.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What speciation?????

Is this where you tell me the same creature with the same marker genes that inhabits different ecosystems is a separate species despite telling me we can tell by the marker genes?????

Tigers and lions are different species. That you do not understand this is apparent. You keep misapplying the definition of species to the two groups.

And I was not talking about lions and tigers in that case. We could use humans and chimps. No need to have you attempt to breed with a chimp to demonstrate that we are different species.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Tigers and lions are different species. That you do not understand this is apparent. You keep misapplying the definition of species to the two groups.

And I was not talking about lions and tigers in that case. We could use humans and chimps. No need to have you attempt to breed with a chimp to demonstrate that we are different species.

Can we use finches??????

Finches that are humping like rabbits right in front of their eyes and producing fertile offspring......

I agree with you that Chimps and Humans are separate species. I am not the one claiming they are related....

I'm not the one claiming markers can be used, then ignore two fish exactly alike including markers, capable of producing fertile offspring, but classified as separate species because they inhabit different zones... Suddenly you choose to ignore the same markers you claim can be used..... Or those finches, you'll ignore everything you just said when it comes to their classification and start the double-talk to try to avoid your inconsistencies.....