• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Justatruthseeker said:
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.....
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but do you remember how you fail constantly in that argument?

By the way, we can show that humans and chimps are related using DNA. If you accept the findings of any DNA test then by the same logic you need to accept the same genetic tests that show we are related to chimps. One cannot be a creationist and be consistent (except to be consistently wrong) in one's reasoning.
 
exchemist

exchemist

Veteran Member
Justatruthseeker said:
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....
Click to expand...
And the colour change in the peppered moth?
 
exchemist

exchemist

Veteran Member
Justatruthseeker said:
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....
Click to expand...
So what do you think causes the variation in animal populations?
 
Justatruthseeker

Justatruthseeker

Active Member
Subduction Zone said:
Perhaps, but do you remember how you fail constantly in that argument?
Click to expand...
Says the guy that ignores the very definition of species he gave.....

By the way, we can show that humans and chimps are related using DNA. If you accept the findings of any DNA test then by the same logic you need to accept the same genetic tests that show we are related to chimps. One cannot be a creationist and be consistent (except to be consistently wrong) in one's reasoning.
Click to expand...

Except we don't use DNA tests that randomly match any part of a persons DNA to any other random part of another persons DNA using algorithms to tell if a person is related or not in a court of law...... Nor do we cut out 13% from one person and another 26% from the other..... So DNA tests that have been proven in a court of law to test for relationship having nothing in common with the pseudoscientific test you use on chimps and Humans...... But then that's probably why they don't use the same tests to prove relation or guilt with humans in court as you claim shows relation with chimps and humans. One is actually valid, the other is pseudoscience....

Sure I'll accept the results of Finch DNA, since it shows they are of "mixed ancestry" and not separate species at all.....

Darwin finches' messy family tree

"They sequenced the genomes of multiple individuals from all 15 species of Darwin's finches, one of which inhabits the rather more distant Cocos Island, along with two related bird species that live on the South American mainland and the West Indies....... Normally when two species start to develop independently, they reach a point where there are so many genetic differences that animals from the different lineages no longer mate, or their hybrid offspring are sterile - as is the case when a horse and a donkey produce a mule.....
The study also revealed a surprisingly large amount of "gene flow" between the branches of the family. This indicates that the species have continued to interbreed or hybridise, after diversifying when they first arrived on the islands..... "When you look at their results, you can see the trees are quite messy, in terms of the traditional species groupings."

So the DNA results in Finches shows they are one species, with many breeds or subspecies..... not many separate species......
 
Last edited:
Justatruthseeker

Justatruthseeker

Active Member
exchemist said:
So what do you think causes the variation in animal populations?
Click to expand...

You have to start from the correct starting point.... At the start the genomes were more perfect. they contained more variation and possibilities within them. Over the years along with mutations destroying the genome making large portions dysfunctional or deleting them, less and less variation is available over time. This is why we could get over 100 breeds of dogs from wolf stock, but have gotten less and less able to produce new breeds the further they diverge from the wolf..... A Poodle is unable to produce large numbers of variations. They are becoming set within their breed and so produce only Poodles. You now have to mix them with another breed to get a new variation. Unlike when we started with (not modern wolves - which themselves are becoming fixed within their breed) ancient wolves which were closer to perfection and had more variability within their genomes.

Remember. A mutation is a copy error. It is taking what "already exists" and simply writing it into a new format. The same possibility that "already exists" within the genome. It is not creating anything new. It is simply doing the same thing mating does to hundreds of loci at once, except to only one loci at a time..... Hence their belief in millions of years. Yet an Asian mating with an African produces an Afro-Asian in nine months. New variation within the species....

You have to start from the correct staring point to understand what we see. Not from simple to more complex.... but from more complex to simpler.....
 
Polymath257

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Justatruthseeker said:
Until those changes cause it to go extinct..... Like every single species eventually has...... so was it really beneficial, or just one that appeared so in the "short term"?
Click to expand...

The term 'beneficial' is only relevant to a particular environment. When the environment changes, that same change may no longer be beneficial. But that doesn't mean it wasn't beneficial in the earlier environment.

Species change over time by this means.
 
Audie

Audie

Veteran Member
Justatruthseeker said:
Until those changes cause it to go extinct..... Like every single species eventually has...... so was it really beneficial, or just one that appeared so in the "short term"?
Click to expand...

What gives you the idea that it is"those changes" that
cause it to go extinct? Made up bs aint a argument except
to fool the ninnies.

Uh..did it, like, fool you? Say you know better, yah?
 
Justatruthseeker

Justatruthseeker

Active Member
Polymath257 said:
The term 'beneficial' is only relevant to a particular environment. When the environment changes, that same change may no longer be beneficial. But that doesn't mean it wasn't beneficial in the earlier environment.

Species change over time by this means.
Click to expand...
You haven't seen any species change over time.... except when like those finches that are interbreeding and "When you look at their results, you can see the trees are quite messy, in terms of the traditional species groupings." In other words the DNA results do not support the traditional classifications of separate species....

That's why every single creature in the fossil record remains the same from the first one discovered for it until it goes extinct. Stop ignoring the empirical data....
 
Justatruthseeker

Justatruthseeker

Active Member
Audie said:
What gives you the idea that it is"those changes" that
cause it to go extinct? Made up bs aint a argument except
to fool the ninnies.

Uh..did it, like, fool you? Say you know better, yah?
Click to expand...
What makes you think it isn't? Besides you don't want to believe it?
 
Audie

Audie

Veteran Member
Justatruthseeker said:
You haven't seen any species change over time.... except when like those finches that are interbreeding and "When you look at their results, you can see the trees are quite messy, in terms of the traditional species groupings." In other words the DNA results do not support the traditional classifications of separate species....

That's why every single creature in the fossil record remains the same from the first one discovered for it until it goes extinct. Stop ignoring the empirical data....
Click to expand...

Exactly! As soon as the least difference is noted, why, it is a
whole new rhing! Clever!
 
Justatruthseeker

Justatruthseeker

Active Member
exchemist said:
And a variety of many such tiny changes is what leads to variations within any organism population. They are taking place due to mutations all the time: Mutation rate - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

Except every fossil creature across millions of years doesn't show any tiny changes at all....

That's why every single creature in the fossil record remains the same from the first one discovered for it until it goes extinct. Stop ignoring the empirical data....

it's those lack of intermediate small changes that even Darwin admitted was disastrous to his theory. he just had hope they would one day be found, and they haven't... In fact it's worse than his day as several hundred thousand other species have all been discovered since his day and every one of them remains the same.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top