Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
hmm, yes, another substantive and compelling counter argument, the YELLING makes it especially convincing, I must reconsider my position
-
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!
The top wrong assumptions i've came across when debating theist about evolution
- Thread starter Segev Moran
- Start date
hmm, yes, another substantive and compelling counter argument, the YELLING makes it especially convincing, I must reconsider my position
Once again. Dog evolved from wolves. They did not evolve from any of the *modern* wolves. The common ancestor of modern dogs and modern wolves was an extinct wolf. There was also considerable genetic transfer between the different dog/wolf lines.
From your link:
"
Abstract
To identify genetic changes underlying dog domestication and reconstruct their early evolutionary history, we generated high-quality genome sequences from three gray wolves, one from each of the three putative centers of dog domestication, two basal dog lineages (Basenji and Dingo) and a golden jackal as an outgroup. Analysis of these sequences supports a demographic model in which dogs and wolves diverged through a dynamic process involving population bottlenecks in both lineages and post-divergence gene flow. In dogs, the domestication bottleneck involved at least a 16-fold reduction in population size, a much more severe bottleneck than estimated previously. A sharp bottleneck in wolves occurred soon after their divergence from dogs, implying that the pool of diversity from which dogs arose was substantially larger than represented by modern wolf populations. We narrow the plausible range for the date of initial dog domestication to an interval spanning 11–16 thousand years ago, predating the rise of agriculture. In light of this finding, we expand upon previous work regarding the increase in copy number of the amylase gene (AMY2B) in dogs, which is believed to have aided digestion of starch in agricultural refuse. We find standing variation for amylase copy number variation in wolves and little or no copy number increase in the Dingo and Husky lineages. In conjunction with the estimated timing of dog origins, these results provide additional support to archaeological finds, suggesting the earliest dogs arose alongside hunter-gathers rather than agriculturists. Regarding the geographic origin of dogs, we find that, surprisingly, none of the extant wolf lineages from putative domestication centers is more closely related to dogs, and, instead, the sampled wolves form a sister monophyletic clade. This result, in combination with dog-wolf admixture during the process of domestication, suggests that a re-evaluation of past hypotheses regarding dog origins is necessary.
Author Summary
The process of dog domestication is still poorly understood, largely because no studies thus far have leveraged deeply sequenced whole genomes from wolves and dogs to simultaneously evaluate support for the proposed source regions: East Asia, the Middle East, and Europe. To investigate dog origins, we sequence three wolf genomes from the putative centers of origin, two basal dog breeds (Basenji and Dingo), and a golden jackal as an outgroup. We find that none of the wolf lineages from the hypothesized domestication centers is supported as the source lineage for dogs, and that dogs and wolves diverged 11,000–16,000 years ago in a process involving extensive admixture and that was followed by a bottleneck in wolves. In addition, we investigate the amylase (AMY2B) gene family expansion in dogs, which has recently been suggested as being critical to domestication in response to increased dietary starch. We find standing variation in AMY2B copy number in wolves and show that some breeds, such as Dingo and Husky, lack the AMY2B expansion. This suggests that, at the beginning of the domestication process, dogs may have been characterized by a more carnivorous diet than their modern day counterparts, a diet held in common with early hunter-gatherers."
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
Relax Bob, I'm not asking you to throw the baby out with the bathwater
We have simply learned that dogs did not evolve from what we call wolves as once believed, (sorry- understood)
" It's something more ancient that isn't well represented by today's wolves." as the study concludes-
so the transitional link has once again retreated from the observable to the hypothetical- we simply don't know how ancient or whether or not it's something we would even recognize as 'wolf-like'
which is why it makes sense, that you will not find those transitionals between wolves and bulldogs, because they never existed.
But I'm sure this new hypothetical ancestor really did exist, I believe it!! It just needs a catchy name.
How do you feel about 'Piltdown dog' ?
Last edited:
Relax Bob, I'm not asking you to throw the baby out with the bathwater
We have simply learned that dogs did not evolve from what we call wolves as once believed, (sorry- understood)
" It's something more ancient that isn't well represented by today's wolves." as the study concludes-
so the transitional link has once again retreated from the observable to the hypothetical- we simply don't know how ancient or whether or not it's something we would even recognize as 'wolf-like'
which is why it makes sense, that you will not find those transitionals between wolves and bulldogs, because they never existed.
But I'm sure this new hypothetical ancestor really did exist, I believe it!! It just needs a catchy name.
How do you feel about 'Piltdown dog' ?
I'd point out that the article you pointed to gave a time for the separation of dogs from wolves. They have not *always* been separated. In other words, they had a common ancestor.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
This isn't true, though. There are obviously mutations that aren't beneficial that happen just as often if not more so than those that are beneficial. But, natural selection means that beneficial mutations have a much higher likelihood of being passed on from generation to generation. And, it is undeniable that, over long periods of time, we see immense change. Even human beings have changed quite a bit in our short recorded history (see below).sticks and stones..
I don't think people who believe in evolution are silly, or 'deniers' or lying. I used to believe in it passionately also. We are dealing with an inherently speculative reconstruction of natural history. My first doubts were only raised in getting into the nitty gritty of trying to reconstruct the algorithms in computer simulations to demonstrate the process to 'deniers'
"Evolution is about change"
Agreed, change is inevitable in an algorithm where random mutations constantly corrupt the plans without a master copy to re-reference. As re-photocopying a document from successive generations instead of the original, this inevitably produces decline, degradation, decomposition, aka entropy.
If after 20 years, the same office memo looks good as new, we know somebody is copying from a master.
and this is not only what we see in the cold hard math, but with life also, only to a far greater extent/ generations
From They Don't Make Homo Sapiens Like They Used To | DiscoverMagazine.com
Over the past 10,000 years, their data show, human evolution has occurred a hundred times more quickly than in any other period in our species’ history.
The new genetic adaptations, some 2,000 in total, are not limited to the well-recognized differences among ethnic groups in superficial traits such as skin and eye color. The mutations relate to the brain, the digestive system, life span, immunity to pathogens, sperm production, and bones—in short, virtually every aspect of our functioning.
Many of these DNA variants are unique to their continent of origin, with provocative implications. “It is likely that human races are evolving away from each other,” says University of Utah anthropologist Henry Harpending, who coauthored a major paper on recent human evolution. “We are getting less alike, not merging into a single mixed humanity.”
Harpending theorizes that the attitudes and customs that distinguish today’s humans from those of the past may be more than just cultural, as historians have widely assumed. “We aren’t the same as people even a thousand or two thousand years ago,” he says. “Almost every trait you look at is under strong genetic influence.”
Not surprisingly, the new findings have raised hackles. Some scientists are alarmed by claims of ethnic differences in temperament and intelligence, fearing that they will inflame racial sensitivities. Other researchers point to limitations in the data. Yet even skeptics now admit that some human traits, at least, are evolving rapidly, challenging yesterday’s hallowed beliefs.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Wait, you are misrepresenting your own source. It states clearly that dogs did evolve from wolves, just not modern wolves. Dogs and modern wolves share a common ancestor ... a species of wolves that is now extinct.Relax Bob, I'm not asking you to throw the baby out with the bathwater
We have simply learned that dogs did not evolve from what we call wolves as once believed, (sorry- understood)
" It's something more ancient that isn't well represented by today's wolves." as the study concludes-
so the transitional link has once again retreated from the observable to the hypothetical- we simply don't know how ancient or whether or not it's something we would even recognize as 'wolf-like'
which is why it makes sense, that you will not find those transitionals between wolves and bulldogs, because they never existed.
But I'm sure this new hypothetical ancestor really did exist, I believe it!! It just needs a catchy name.
How do you feel about 'Piltdown dog' ?
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
Hypothetically... according to the revised theory... of course, I understand, we all have a common ancestor according to ToE right?
But once again a direct example of transition, originally claimed 150 years ago, long taught as gospel, and held as an undeniable cornerstone of evidence for the theory...
has retreated back into the shadows,
Like men from apes and birds from dinos- Science is revealing a pattern that is quite distinct from this Victorian understanding. We have learned that just because two animals share superficial similarities, like big teeth and a leg at each corner, doesn't mean one accidentally morphed into the other. Similarities in design reflect similarities in function- both animals need to catch and bite things!
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Evolution does not contend that one species morphs into another. Where did you get that crazy notion from?
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
something 'wolf-like' they say- what other guess can they take? , of course we can get into semantics of what we would call a 'wolf'
but the point is that dogs did not come from what we know today as wolves as once firmly believed, and what they did 'evolve' from is a mystery, after yet another 150 year old assumption has been debunked.
The OP was about wrong assumptions after all
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
Sorry, one species 'mutates' into another, if that seems less implausible to you?
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Even that is misleading. Evolution does not contend that, in one generation, we go from a wolf (or a wolf-like ancestor) to a dog. It happens gradually, one very slight change at a time.
No, the divergence of dogs and modern wolves was traced back less than 20 thousand years ago. That is hardly into the shadows.
Species change over the course of several generations. The changes don't happen from one generation to the next.
Yes, we can identify similarities between species and use those similarities to determine how closely they are related. Do you dispute this?
Exactly. In evolution, what constitutes one species or another isn't a hard and fast thing. You don't go from one species to another in a single generation.
An analogy: modern English didn't exist 2000 years ago. Nobody on Earth spoke modern English at that time. They all spoke different languages.
But there was no single 'first person' who spoke modern English, nor was there even a first generation that spoke modern English. At each stage, the language was perfectly well understood by those speaking it *and* their parents and their children.
Yet, the languages changed. And a new language now exists: modern English.
As we get more refined in our information, we will also get more refined in our picture of what happened.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Seriously guys, you all need to have a bit more institutional memory. Guy T. has been playing this dishonest game with dogs/wolves, birds/dinos, and humans/apes for a few months now, but it seems each time he repeats it everyone acts like it's the first time they've heard it.
It's been well established that Guy is dishonestly trying to cast scientists saying "A and B evolved from a common ancestor, rather than B evolving from A" as somehow problematic for evolutionary biologists. Whenever someone exposes his chicanery, he simply ignores it and repeats the dishonest argument as if nothing had happened.
So are we all on the same page here? Can we file this away in our memories so the next time Guy tries this crap, we won't have forgotten?
It's been well established that Guy is dishonestly trying to cast scientists saying "A and B evolved from a common ancestor, rather than B evolving from A" as somehow problematic for evolutionary biologists. Whenever someone exposes his chicanery, he simply ignores it and repeats the dishonest argument as if nothing had happened.
So are we all on the same page here? Can we file this away in our memories so the next time Guy tries this crap, we won't have forgotten?
Skwim
Veteran Member
Nah. That she was bound to share the apple was all part of god's plan. Being omniscient he foresaw her munching and sharing before he even made Adam.
Free will is an illusion. Often championed by Christians so as to save the concept of sin and salvation.
Why should we be in awe of a omniscient and omnipotent being? Shouldn't these"wondrous" things be expected of such a being? And science does, in fact, create things. That you want to assign an extremely limited meaning to the word so it only applies to god is inexcusably biased and silly, and not worth considering.
Thing is, we can't admit to such a thing because we've failed to be convinced it has any validity. Want to convince us there's a God who loves us so much that He would create a place for us to live, then you're going to have to do better than producing an ancient text filled with myth and mistakes, or expect pulpit pounders to convince.
Really? Then why did he bother with the whole Jesus episode?
.
.
Last edited:
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
Yarr, tis a gay analogy sez I !
Well yes, according to the theory there are supposed to be vast numbers of intermediates, to allow everything a smooth transition from single cell to complex organism, accumulating lots of little lucky accidents!
- and this is exactly why dogs were assumed to have come from wolves- because they were both furry with a leg at each corner and teeth at one end, this served as a convincing example
But in contrast, the more information is gathered, the more the gaps keep getting more defined - dogs and wolves are further apart than we thought, not closer.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
That was the theory.
Then there's the record as it stands 150 years on
where we follow dogs and wolves back and see separate distinct lines as far as they can be seen- not a slow divergence
We see the oldest ancestors of the Giraffe, with a neck every bit as long as a modern one- no gradual neck lengthening
We see abrupt, even explosive appearances of highly evolved species, followed by sometimes hundred of millions of years of complete stasis..
cmon, at the very least, they are not exactly the results that were hoped for by Darwinists are they?
Yes, but still close enough to be related. The time of separation hasn't changed that much.