Evidence for God from Science

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Well if you agree that breeding effects the DNA of, lets say chickens.

If the environment has no effect on this population then releasing them back into the wild should have no effect.

That's true. IF you put a pair of genetic chickens in the barn, in a swamp, in the arctic, they are either gonna continue to make chicks with dry fly hackle, or become extinct. If you put them back into the wild with a group of chickens, these extreme traits are going to disappear because DNA is a resistance to change.

IT is not the environment that is making the chickens what they are, it is their DNA.

Doesn't DNA effect traits?
And does DNA not change?

Are you sure it's the DNA which removes those traits and not just the traits becomming diluted into the gene pool?

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: Doesn't DNA effect traits?
And does DNA not change?

Are you sure it's the DNA which removes those traits and not just the traits becomming diluted into the gene pool?

I know that over generations the different traits are going to disappear.

I would go one stronger and say that DNA determines traits. I think DNA fluctuates some, but I think that it is resistant to change and that is why we see stability within species.

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: Doesn't DNA effect traits?
And does DNA not change?

Are you sure it's the DNA which removes those traits and not just the traits becomming diluted into the gene pool?

I know that over generations the different traits are going to disappear.

I would go one stronger and say that DNA determines traits. I think DNA fluctuates some, but I think that it is resistant to change and that is why we see stability within species.

If DNA resists change than how can we manipulate the way a species looks?

If DNA effects traits then aren't certain traits more favored over others?

I'm not offended, but it seems like poor rhetoric to throw out stuff like this “Methylization of haploids and/or erosion is what dictates a trait”, since “The word Haploid is a word that geneticist should never [have] invented, it covers both organism that have a single chromosome and those that have a single sex chromosome that is not found in both sexes. It creates a certain degree of ambiguity (http://home.att.net/~pdeitik/haploids.htm). Not to mention that methylization is actually the obscure word methylation and is basically meaningless jargon. Why can't you simply say in plain English what you mean. I googled “Erosion of haploids”and “haploid erosion” and got exactly zero responses. I googled “Haploid methylation” and “methylation of haploids” and also got zero responses. I think you are trying to sound intelligent and failing to communicate in the process.

Regrettably Mr. Jbuza, I made one small error, using the verb tense of the word as opposed to the noun tense. Methylation. As far as your assertion that haploid is not to be used, I highly suggest you are incorrect and need to further your studies into the area. What you quoted is the opinion of few, not the majority of geneticists.

Secondly, I spend more time with books, which tend to include long indexes of coinciding references, as I all too often find "the internets" to be overly suspect, lacking proper documentation, proper references and all together, too many generalities.

Haploid erosion does occur, it is documented, repeatedly in genetic manuals, and it occurs over numerous generations with respect to environmental stresses.

As far as your dismissing my assertions regarding my forcing natural selection on my Mastiffs, you are egregiously incorrect. What I did is empirically sound, over the course of 9 generations, which you didn't seem to bother to acknowledge. Although what I do can be considered overly sterilized, it is more to point the effect that environmental, (ie. the entire point of me stating "species appropriate diet"), and then genetic cross breeding, not in-line breeding, were both forcing change in the genetic structure of the canines, which obviously means that DNA, particularly certain paternal/maternal haploids, were changing.

You would do well to spend less time looking for reasons to be irritated with an individuals writing style, and making unfounded personal attacks on the person, and more time looking into factual evidence that supports valuable contentions of a debate.

I case you doubt my words as folly or fallacy, feel free to look up any source of information, or debate, as to the place that language and it's use holds in the realm of intellect. If you can't find it, I am quite certain a local librarian could help you.

Sorry if I came across to harsh. MY own personal style is to seek to communicate clearly instead of used puffed up words.

I think you were trying to tell me that your long experince with breeding is that you have been able to improve your animal with sound diet, and a good sexual partner. I too breed dogs, and know that I can improve my dogs by sound diet, and breeding choice individuals, or individuals that complement.

I think you were trying to use your selective breeding program as an example of natural selection. IT is not.

I'm sorry that you felt attacked I was just trying to point out the fact that your were using some jargon and rather meaningless words and that you were failing to communicate with me.

If you would rather sound pretty in your own ears than be able to clearly demonstrate your meanings, than that is your business. I have included some links to help you to understand how simpler words are better at actually communicating ideas. Since I haven't got my cave wired yet, you will have to wait and I can post more links for you so that you can understand how pretty words are not as good as clear communication.



3. Avoid affectations and fancy words. For example: The second statement follows mutatis mutandis from the first. The phrase mutatis mutandis (= "with corresponding changes") is, indeed, an impressive phrase, but it is also baffling to most readers. Avoid fanciful and pretentious vocabulary. The following extract from an autobiography of the French mathematician André Weil illustrates just how bad affective writing can be:

My life, or at least what deserves this name—a singularly happy life, its diverse vicissitudes withal—is bounded by my birth on May 6, 1906, and the death on May 24, 1986, of my wife and companion.

It may be argued that clever phrasing and curious words make reading more interesting, and to deny an author their use limits his tools and leads to mundane writing. This is the argument of a novice who confuses poetry and song lyrics with formal prose. Both of the previous examples are demonstrations of bad communication, because the words distract from the ideas. Writers who choose words and phrases like this are treating writing as an art form much like dancing—as an end unto itself—rather than as a tool to express ideas.

Samuel Johnson once recalled the following remark from a college tutor: “Read over your compositions, and wherever you meet with a passage that you think is particularly fine, strike it out." This, I think, is one of the great pieces of advice for beginners. Whenever a reader begins to notice the writing instead of the ideas carried by the writing, then the reader is being distracted.

4. Stick with the action, not the abstraction. Maybe this will help: After writing each sentence, imagine your boss, red-faced and screaming: “What are you talking about? I can't understand you! Get to the point!” Minimize, and be concise. Your writing, like mine, is of interest only for the facts it brings the reader. Even most of those who dedicate their lives to the craft of writing don't write particularly well. Bear in mind that your perspectives are rarely interesting to anyone else. (A striking exception, of course, is this article.)
http://www.llrx.com/columns/grammar13.htm


Of the Abuse of Words
http://www.rbjones.com/rbjpub/philos/cl ... tb3c10.htm


(mild language)
Notes On Unnecessary Complexity On Communication; Or, What The **** Are You Saying?
Many people use big words to make themselves or their ideas sound important (or to obscure the meaning and make it sound pleasant or desirable). It may also be the case that people use big words to sound more important and make their opinions seem more significant (6). But that could then mean that the Left is essentially a clique and people are scrambling for status in a movement that is theoretically devoid of status or class ...

http://www.punkrockacademy.com/stm/essa ... ation.html

Jbuza wrote:Since I haven't got my cave wired yet, you will have to wait and I can post more links for you so that you can understand how pretty words are not as good as clear communication.

I understand your concern; using vocabulary for the sake of vocabulary is counterproductive, however I find that in some contexts word choice is important.

It is necessary to be able to communicate some ideas with precision. I find Mastriani's language to be just that, exacting and precise. This is good, it avoids abiguity.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: Doesn't DNA effect traits?
And does DNA not change?

Are you sure it's the DNA which removes those traits and not just the traits becomming diluted into the gene pool?

I know that over generations the different traits are going to disappear.

I would go one stronger and say that DNA determines traits. I think DNA fluctuates some, but I think that it is resistant to change and that is why we see stability within species.

If DNA resists change than how can we manipulate the way a species looks?

If DNA effects traits then aren't certain traits more favored over others?

That is the point, since DNA resists change we can manipulate how a species looks. We find animals that have the traits we desire, and breed them together. Across successive generations we get closer and closer to what we desire.

I agree that DNA is flexible, and that siblings from the same generation will end up with different combinations of their parents DNA. Selective breeding shows that their is also some stability to the DNA, and a genetic flock of chickens will continue to have the desired traits, only so long as they are insulated from the greater gene pool of chickens. As long as I continue breeding labradors together I will get labradors, because the DNA isn't going to spontaneously change so that I end up with a begel or poodle. The DNA of the parents is going to be passed on to the offspring in a relativly stable process.


Yes DNA does effect traits, and some traits are more dominant than other traits. This is important to know especially in breeding labradors, and with genetic hackle chickens, since sometimes the desired traits are not dominant.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: It is necessary to be able to communicate some ideas with precision. I find Mastriani's language to be just that, exacting and precise. This is good, it avoids abiguity.

OK. I have tried to dceipher this:

Methylization of haploids and/or erosion is what dictates a trait



and this:

environmental variables, population increase/decrease, isolation, is what causes particular genomes to be methylized for "on/off" signatures during the reproductive process.


In the first snippit, do you think that he means that the unique DNA that a child inherits by the sexual reproduction of parents dictates traits? As near as I can tell methylation is the jargon that describes the process involved when the sex cells recombine to give the new individual their unique DNA. I'm not sure what to make out of erosion, my best guess would be the loss of traits by the death of individuals carrying those traits.

In the second example as near as I can tell he is saying nothing only describing natural selection in more fancy words, perhaps to lend it credibility it doesn't have.

I have decided to digress on this subject, as it is turning into a relentless bashing and is not progressing in a definitively positive direction.

My last words on this are simple. DNA is not the unmoving mountain, it is the watercourse way of life. It changes, simply put. If not, all non-extinct creatures would be precisely as they were from the moment of creation.

With respect to language, again, sorry if my style is less colloquial than what most are used to, but again, I was reared and educated in a certain fashion. My writing style, and if you ever met me in person, my natural speaking style, are antiquatedly standardized. Yes, I have had conflicts with management because of the way I communicate, and it gives me great amusement that so called "educated" upper management does not harbor within their "talented minds" the ability to verbalize above a seventh grade level. Am I at fault? No. The onus for lack of standards rests with those who fail, or choose not, to meet them. Not with those for whom the standards represent basic function.

Again, quoting "internets links" does not at all necessarily equate to proof of anything, other than it was found to be present on the web via Google.

Mastriani Wrote
I have decided to digress on this subject, as it is turning into a relentless bashing and is not progressing in a definitively positive direction.


Well, sorry, I was hoping you might re-post this: Methylization of haploids and/or erosion is what dictates a trait such a body shape, along with intellect, disease susceptibility, colorings, etc. Natural selection, ie., environmental variables, population increase/decrease, isolation, is what causes particular genomes to be methylized for "on/off" signatures during the reproductive process. And since I see that you have, “DNA is not the unmoving mountain, it is the watercourse way of life. It changes, simply put. If not, all non-extinct creatures would be precisely as they were from the moment of creation.” I will assume that I interpreted the first post correctly, and appreciate the clarification. I have no desire to bash you, and sorry for coming across that way. I was just trying to point out that simply because you write something doesn't mean that it communicates a clear idea to someone else.

I happen to disagree with your analogy that DNA is not the unmoving mountain. I think that it is in fact DNA that has caused all non-extinct creatures to remain the same from the moment of creation. The observations show that, while variety does exist within a species, animals remain stable over time. I wonder if you can demonstrate to what extent you believe DNA to be the “watercourse way of life”?

I have no problem with your style, and I think it is good, I was just trying to point out that some of what you said seemed a bit nebulous, and it was hard for me to decipher what your actual meaning was. I guess you believe either all men are of the same ability, or that all men with the same ability have received the same quality of education. I wasn't trying to bash you I was pointing out the fact that you had sacrificed clarity of meaning.


You wrote
Again, quoting "internets links" does not at all necessarily equate to proof of anything, other than it was found to be present on the web via Google.


I wasn't trying to prove anything. I was pointing out that you were having a problem communicating a thought to me and thought you might find those links helpful. Since I cannot show you my communications texts, you will have to settle with what I can show you, or ignore it altogether.

I look forward to enjoyable discussions, and I truly am sorry for appearing too harsh.

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:If DNA resists change than how can we manipulate the way a species looks?

If DNA effects traits then aren't certain traits more favored over others?

That is the point, since DNA resists change we can manipulate how a species looks. We find animals that have the traits we desire, and breed them together. Across successive generations we get closer and closer to what we desire.

We don't seem to be talking about the same thing. What you are saying doesn't show that DNA resists change. Perhaps you are using the term differently than a scientist would. We need to be more specific in our language.

Do you mean that DNA resists mutations?
Or do you mean that the particular sequence of a DNA does not change.

In either case the example above does not show that DNA is resistant to change.
In the case of DNA resisting mutations the above does not proove it one way or another.
In the case you are saying that DNA resists changes in its sequence the above shows the opposite. The sequence can easily be changed by breeding outside of the population. We can breed for certain desirable traits across successive generations.

Where do the features that you are breeding for originate? They originate from mutations. Mutations created those traits which you are breeding for.
http://www.discover.com/web-exclusives/ ... me-mapped/

Jbuza wrote:I agree that DNA is flexible, and that siblings from the same generation will end up with different combinations of their parents DNA.

So is DNA flexible or resistant to change, I don't understand.

Jbuza wrote:Selective breeding shows that their is also some stability to the DNA, and a genetic flock of chickens will continue to have the desired traits, only so long as they are insulated from the greater gene pool of chickens.

And isn't this a case of selection? Suppose I had a group of chickens in the wild. A new virus has evolved and is now going through the bird population. Only those chickens which are lucky enough to have the right combination of pre-existing genes are able to survive. This is natural selection. Works exactly the same way as you describe below and above. As long as these birds are kept separate from it's parent population they will be genetically distinct. Is it because you can't see an immune system that you are skeptical? It's usually these types of changes which may eventually make two sub-populations incompatible.

Jbuza wrote:As long as I continue breeding labradors together I will get labradors, because the DNA isn't going to spontaneously change so that I end up with a begel or poodle.

Noone is saying this will occur, however from time to time new traits will occur in your labrador population. And how is this different from natural selection?

Jbuza wrote:The DNA of the parents is going to be passed on to the offspring in a relativly stable process.

This is true, however you miss the point. What does selection actually do? It takes a large gene pool and reduces certain traits. Natural or unnatural thats what selection is.

Jbuza wrote:Yes DNA does effect traits, and some traits are more dominant than other traits. This is important to know especially in breeding labradors, and with genetic hackle chickens, since sometimes the desired traits are not dominant.

A good point, however if the conditions existed where the resessive trait was necessary for survival all othere allele combinations would be wiped out simultaneously resulting in the dominance of the resessive trait. Happens more readily on the farm, but it does occur in the wild.

I mean that the information contained within an organism that determines How many legs it will have, if it will have wings, if it will have hair or fur, how many toes it will have, etc, etc remains stable over time. For example since one of my Labradors has a questionable otter tail I can find a mate that has a great tail, and breed them together and the stability of DNA will cause some of the pups to have a great tail like its parent.

I am not going to get what I want by breeding indiscriminately and waiting for the mutation I want to happen. The features originate from breeding for the traits we want. I see the trait in a perspective mate for my dog, and since DNA has a great deal of stability I can be reasonably assured that I can create offspring with the desirable trait. The DNA has a certain amount of flexibility built in by the process of sexual reproduction and encoding that happens when DNA is recombined, but the observations show that animals remain genetically similar to there ancestors.
-----
Bgood Wrote
And isn't this a case of selection? Suppose I had a group of chickens in the wild. A new virus has evolved and is now going through the bird population. Only those chickens which are lucky enough to have the right combination of pre-existing genes are able to survive. This is natural selection. Works exactly the same way as you describe below and above. As long as these birds are kept separate from it's parent population they will be genetically distinct. Is it because you can't see an immune system that you are skeptical? It's usually these types of changes which may eventually make two sub-populations incompatible.

Yes I agree I think that we have seen that forces that cause animals with certain traits to reproduce together will cause those traits to be passed on to their offspring. Hence you will find that those chickens will pass on all the chicken traits including the ability to reproduce with other chickens.
-----
Bgood Wrote
from time to time new traits will occur in your labrador population. And how is this different from natural selection?

Such as?
-----
Bgood Wrote
What does selection actually do? It takes a large gene pool and reduces certain traits.
A good point, however if the conditions existed where the resessive trait was necessary for survival all othere allele combinations would be wiped out simultaneously resulting in the dominance of the resessive trait. Happens more readily on the farm, but it does occur in the wild.


I guess than you are saying that natural selection serves to reduce variability, since it appears to serve to limit the amount of possible DNA combinations.

Jbuza wrote:I mean that the information contained within an organism that determines How many legs it will have, if it will have wings, if it will have hair or fur, how many toes it will have, etc, etc remains stable over time. For example since one of my Labradors has a questionable otter tail I can find a mate that has a great tail, and breed them together and the stability of DNA will cause some of the pups to have a great tail like its parent.

So this shows that traits are determined by genetics which is encoded in the DNA. This also shows that DNA is not in itself inflexible, what you are showing is that the gene pool is stable. The DNA of an individual is just a part of this gene pool.

Jbuza wrote:I am not going to get what I want by breeding indiscriminately and waiting for the mutation I want to happen.

No I agree, you can only select for traits which already exist. As does nature.

Jbuza wrote:The features originate from breeding for the traits we want. I see the trait in a perspective mate for my dog, and since DNA has a great deal of stability I can be reasonably assured that I can create offspring with the desirable trait. The DNA has a certain amount of flexibility built in by the process of sexual reproduction and encoding that happens when DNA is recombined, but the observations show that animals remain genetically similar to there ancestors.

Yes similar but not identical. The gene pool changes over time.

Jbuza wrote:Bgood Wrote
And isn't this a case of selection? Suppose I had a group of chickens in the wild. A new virus has evolved and is now going through the bird population. Only those chickens which are lucky enough to have the right combination of pre-existing genes are able to survive. This is natural selection. Works exactly the same way as you describe below and above. As long as these birds are kept separate from it's parent population they will be genetically distinct. Is it because you can't see an immune system that you are skeptical? It's usually these types of changes which may eventually make two sub-populations incompatible.
------
Yes I agree I think that we have seen that forces that cause animals with certain traits to reproduce together will cause those traits to be passed on to their offspring. Hence you will find that those chickens will pass on all the chicken traits including the ability to reproduce with other chickens.

I will come back to this idea further on down the discussion.

Jbuza wrote:Bgood Wrote
from time to time new traits will occur in your labrador population. And how is this different from natural selection?

Such as?

Where do new traits come from then? There are many genes found in dogs which do not occur in any wild wolf populations. Where did these traits come from?
http://www.messybeast.com/new-mutations.html

Jbuza wrote:Bgood Wrote
What does selection actually do? It takes a large gene pool and reduces certain traits.
A good point, however if the conditions existed where the resessive trait was necessary for survival all othere allele combinations would be wiped out simultaneously resulting in the dominance of the resessive trait. Happens more readily on the farm, but it does occur in the wild.

I guess than you are saying that natural selection serves to reduce variability, since it appears to serve to limit the amount of possible DNA combinations.

Yes, selection reduces gene pool, mutations add to the gene pool. In nature however selection is usually more subtle except in cases such as the virus example above.

And unless something in nature is unbalanced such as weather changes introduction of new species or disease or some other catastrophe; nature is at an equilibrium. During these stable periods the subtle selection of nature allows for a large and sustainable gene pool. Like a forest that's been there for thousands of years.

What we mean by sustainable gene pool is a population has enough variability to survive stressing circumstances.

Bgood Wrote
So this shows that traits are determined by genetics which is encoded in the DNA. This also shows that DNA is not in itself inflexible, what you are showing is that the gene pool is stable. The DNA of an individual is just a part of this gene pool.

Well the gene pool is actually only two individuals with respect to reproduction
-------
Bgood Wrote
Where do new traits come from then? There are many genes found in dogs which do not occur in any wild wolf populations. Where did these traits come from?


Selective breeding programs. When we breed for certain traits we are actually breeding for genes.
-------
Bgood Wrote
Yes, selection reduces gene pool, mutations add to the gene pool. In nature however selection is usually more subtle except in cases such as the virus example above.
And unless something in nature is unbalanced such as weather changes introduction of new species or disease or some other catastrophe; nature is at an equilibrium. During these stable periods the subtle selection of nature allows for a large and sustainable gene pool. Like a forest that's been there for thousands of years.
What we mean by sustainable gene pool is a population has enough variability to survive stressing circumstances.

I think a large part of this is story and recitation from evolution theory, I wonder is this what we actually observe, or is it just the party line. I'm not even sure how to respond to this, perhaps you could give actual examples. IT seems you are saying that stressing conditions cause mutations, but that stable conditions create a gene pool that is able to resist stressing conditions. IT seems that this is must a nebulous mechanism whereby evolutionists can say whatever needs to happen to make the theory work happens. Natural selection could just as easily work to purify the gene pool from mutations. We do not observe species changing to meet environments we observe them going extinct or reproducing in like kind in spite of harsh conditions.

Sorry not much time so if you need more clarification please let me know.

Jbuza wrote:Bgood Wrote
So this shows that traits are determined by genetics which is encoded in the DNA. This also shows that DNA is not in itself inflexible, what you are showing is that the gene pool is stable. The DNA of an individual is just a part of this gene pool.

Well the gene pool is actually only two individuals with respect to reproduction

By definition the gene pool consists of all individuals who are sexually compatible.
-------

Jbuza wrote:Bgood Wrote
Where do new traits come from then? There are many genes found in dogs which do not occur in any wild wolf populations. Where did these traits come from?

Selective breeding programs. When we breed for certain traits we are actually breeding for genes.

This covers existing traits but where do the new traits come from?
-------

Jbuza wrote:Bgood Wrote
Yes, selection reduces gene pool, mutations add to the gene pool. In nature however selection is usually more subtle except in cases such as the virus example above.
And unless something in nature is unbalanced such as weather changes introduction of new species or disease or some other catastrophe; nature is at an equilibrium. During these stable periods the subtle selection of nature allows for a large and sustainable gene pool. Like a forest that's been there for thousands of years.
What we mean by sustainable gene pool is a population has enough variability to survive stressing circumstances.

I think a large part of this is story and recitation from evolution theory, I wonder is this what we actually observe, or is it just the party line.

It is actually what we observe.
Refer to the viral example from before.

Jbuza wrote:I'm not even sure how to respond to this, perhaps you could give actual examples. IT seems you are saying that stressing conditions cause mutations

No stress causes a weeding out of the gene pool. Heigntened selection like that of a breeder.

Jbuza wrote:, but that stable conditions create a gene pool that is able to resist stressing conditions.

No, once a population has been submitted to selection it is no longer stressful because the population which remains is a result of the weeding out of unfavorable traits.
Like a farm in which the breeding has created a stable population of domesticated animals, the population is now stable.

Jbuza wrote:IT seems that this is must a nebulous mechanism whereby evolutionists can say whatever needs to happen to make the theory work happens.

No it's a complex theory because there are numerous variables involved.
I'm not sure where you see the theory being bent so that it can fit.

Jbuza wrote:Natural selection could just as easily work to purify the gene pool from mutations.

Mutations are not always harmful, those that are not are just new traits, like fluffy ears.

Jbuza wrote:We do not observe species changing to meet environments we observe them going extinct or reproducing in like kind in spite of harsh conditions.

This is not what evolution states.

Like I stated adaptation involves the new environment weeding out those individuals which are less able to cope with the stress. Those who survive now have a distinct gene pool. A sub set of the original population. Further isolation causes divergence due to the fact that mutations only effect the gene pool in which they occur.