"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
But what is the source of this variation, is it in the genes?abelcainsbrother wrote:In a litter of wolves,there is always slight variation,some of them will be the runts of the litter,smaller while others will be bigger and they can have different color fur,etc.It is in the genes.This variation is exactly what caused Darwin to assume life evolves,this is why normal variation in reproduction is not evidence life evolves,yet it is used for evidence in evolution science.BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Ok let's look at variation more closely.abelcainsbrother wrote:Since there is no evidence mutations add to variability and you only have variation for evidence we must go by the evidence,not assumptions without evidence.Since all we have for evidence is normal variability we must go by it and not assume,basically normal variation in reproduction is all we have to go on according to the evidence in evolution science and this is called micro-evolution.BGoodForGoodSake wrote: It seems like you are trying to read between the lines. Please take my statements at face value.
So are you saying when a mutation does occur it does or does not add to the variability?
Let's say a wolf pup and it's sibling are very alike. They were just born but they already have slight differences. What accounts for the differences, is it in their DNA?
I will give you an example of normal variation in reproduction being used for evidence life evolves and I want you to see that just as in a litter of wolves we see normal variation,we see the very same kind of normal variation in reproduction being used for evidence in evolution science,but this is even worse because these salamanders are used for evidence for MACRO-evolution not even MICRO-evolution in evolution science.They are using normal variation in reproduction for evidence for both micro-evolution and macro-evolution.So based on their own evidence we can say they believe reproduction and evolution are the same thing or they cannot tell the difference between reproduction and evolution.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... /devitt_02
All of this talk about mutations? There is no evidence in evolution science that mutations causes life to evolve,it is just believed by faith and assumption.
As far as I am aware of yes it is in the genes,but my point is it is not and cannot be used for evidence life evolves,eventhough it is.Darwin came up with his evolution hypothesis based on variation therefore it cannot be used for evidence life evolves. Instead it was scientists job to demonstrate Darwin's hypothesis was true,which they never did.BGoodForGoodSake wrote:But what is the source of this variation, is it in the genes?abelcainsbrother wrote:In a litter of wolves,there is always slight variation,some of them will be the runts of the litter,smaller while others will be bigger and they can have different color fur,etc.It is in the genes.This variation is exactly what caused Darwin to assume life evolves,this is why normal variation in reproduction is not evidence life evolves,yet it is used for evidence in evolution science.BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Ok let's look at variation more closely.abelcainsbrother wrote:Since there is no evidence mutations add to variability and you only have variation for evidence we must go by the evidence,not assumptions without evidence.Since all we have for evidence is normal variability we must go by it and not assume,basically normal variation in reproduction is all we have to go on according to the evidence in evolution science and this is called micro-evolution.BGoodForGoodSake wrote: It seems like you are trying to read between the lines. Please take my statements at face value.
So are you saying when a mutation does occur it does or does not add to the variability?
Let's say a wolf pup and it's sibling are very alike. They were just born but they already have slight differences. What accounts for the differences, is it in their DNA?
I will give you an example of normal variation in reproduction being used for evidence life evolves and I want you to see that just as in a litter of wolves we see normal variation,we see the very same kind of normal variation in reproduction being used for evidence in evolution science,but this is even worse because these salamanders are used for evidence for MACRO-evolution not even MICRO-evolution in evolution science.They are using normal variation in reproduction for evidence for both micro-evolution and macro-evolution.So based on their own evidence we can say they believe reproduction and evolution are the same thing or they cannot tell the difference between reproduction and evolution.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... /devitt_02
All of this talk about mutations? There is no evidence in evolution science that mutations causes life to evolve,it is just believed by faith and assumption.
Sure, I would think so.BGoodForGoodSake wrote:So genes affect appearance.Nicki wrote:Yes, they've inherited different combinations of genes from their parents.BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Ok let's look at variation more closely.
Let's say a wolf pup and it's sibling are very alike. They were just born but they already have slight differences. What accounts for the differences, is it in their DNA?
That means a series of letters A C T and G determines physical appearance.
So can we look at each sibling and see where their genes are different?
So does this mean we can compare the genes of the siblings and pinpoint the differences in the code?abelcainsbrother wrote:As far as I am aware of yes it is in the genes,but my point is it is not and cannot be used for evidence life evolves,eventhough it is.Darwin came up with his evolution hypothesis based on variation therefore it cannot be used for evidence life evolves. Instead it was scientists job to demonstrate Darwin's hypothesis was true,which they never did.BGoodForGoodSake wrote:But what is the source of this variation, is it in the genes?abelcainsbrother wrote:
In a litter of wolves,there is always slight variation,some of them will be the runts of the litter,smaller while others will be bigger and they can have different color fur,etc.It is in the genes.This variation is exactly what caused Darwin to assume life evolves,this is why normal variation in reproduction is not evidence life evolves,yet it is used for evidence in evolution science.
I will give you an example of normal variation in reproduction being used for evidence life evolves and I want you to see that just as in a litter of wolves we see normal variation,we see the very same kind of normal variation in reproduction being used for evidence in evolution science,but this is even worse because these salamanders are used for evidence for MACRO-evolution not even MICRO-evolution in evolution science.They are using normal variation in reproduction for evidence for both micro-evolution and macro-evolution.So based on their own evidence we can say they believe reproduction and evolution are the same thing or they cannot tell the difference between reproduction and evolution.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... /devitt_02
All of this talk about mutations? There is no evidence in evolution science that mutations causes life to evolve,it is just believed by faith and assumption.
And because the never did in order to push this evolution myth up the hill they use variation for evidence life evolves while calling it micro-evolution and now even macro-evolution in order to imply life evolves based on variation but without evidence while making up myths about natural selection,mutations and random DNA copying errors. This kills the ToE right out of the gate without even getting into anything else, because if scientists will do these things to push a myth?We cannot trust there other evidence. Yes that big pile of evidence that has never demonstrated life evolves.
Yes,however. I don't know if you've looked into Epigenetics but it might be changing the way we think about genes and DNA. It's been awhile since I have looked into it,but it is already more believable than the ToE when it comes to evidence. An example is bees,all bees start out with the same DNA,yet in order to produce queens,the bees feed certian bees "royal jelly" which causes their genes to be expressed totally different,eventhough they have the same DNA and genes when they started out and they develop into queens which look bigger and totally different and have a different role in the hive based on their diet.Epigenetics could change what we eat in the future to help our genes be expressed much better.BGoodForGoodSake wrote:So does this mean we can compare the genes of the siblings and pinpoint the differences in the code?abelcainsbrother wrote:As far as I am aware of yes it is in the genes,but my point is it is not and cannot be used for evidence life evolves,eventhough it is.Darwin came up with his evolution hypothesis based on variation therefore it cannot be used for evidence life evolves. Instead it was scientists job to demonstrate Darwin's hypothesis was true,which they never did.BGoodForGoodSake wrote:But what is the source of this variation, is it in the genes?abelcainsbrother wrote:
In a litter of wolves,there is always slight variation,some of them will be the runts of the litter,smaller while others will be bigger and they can have different color fur,etc.It is in the genes.This variation is exactly what caused Darwin to assume life evolves,this is why normal variation in reproduction is not evidence life evolves,yet it is used for evidence in evolution science.
I will give you an example of normal variation in reproduction being used for evidence life evolves and I want you to see that just as in a litter of wolves we see normal variation,we see the very same kind of normal variation in reproduction being used for evidence in evolution science,but this is even worse because these salamanders are used for evidence for MACRO-evolution not even MICRO-evolution in evolution science.They are using normal variation in reproduction for evidence for both micro-evolution and macro-evolution.So based on their own evidence we can say they believe reproduction and evolution are the same thing or they cannot tell the difference between reproduction and evolution.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... /devitt_02
All of this talk about mutations? There is no evidence in evolution science that mutations causes life to evolve,it is just believed by faith and assumption.
And because the never did in order to push this evolution myth up the hill they use variation for evidence life evolves while calling it micro-evolution and now even macro-evolution in order to imply life evolves based on variation but without evidence while making up myths about natural selection,mutations and random DNA copying errors. This kills the ToE right out of the gate without even getting into anything else, because if scientists will do these things to push a myth?We cannot trust there other evidence. Yes that big pile of evidence that has never demonstrated life evolves.
And therefore the cause of the difference?
Does this also mean that we can compare wolf and dog DNA and find the root of their differences?abelcainsbrother wrote:Yes,however. I don't know if you've looked into Epigenetics but it might be changing the way we think about genes and DNA. It's been awhile since I have looked into it,but it is already more believable than the ToE when it comes to evidence. An example is bees,all bees start out with the same DNA,yet in order to produce queens,the bees feed certian bees "royal jelly" which causes their genes to be expressed totally different,eventhough they have the same DNA and genes when they started out and they develop into queens which look bigger and totally different and have a different role in the hive based on their diet.Epigenetics could change what we eat in the future to help our genes be expressed much better.BGoodForGoodSake wrote:So does this mean we can compare the genes of the siblings and pinpoint the differences in the code?abelcainsbrother wrote:As far as I am aware of yes it is in the genes,but my point is it is not and cannot be used for evidence life evolves,eventhough it is.Darwin came up with his evolution hypothesis based on variation therefore it cannot be used for evidence life evolves. Instead it was scientists job to demonstrate Darwin's hypothesis was true,which they never did.BGoodForGoodSake wrote: But what is the source of this variation, is it in the genes?
And because the never did in order to push this evolution myth up the hill they use variation for evidence life evolves while calling it micro-evolution and now even macro-evolution in order to imply life evolves based on variation but without evidence while making up myths about natural selection,mutations and random DNA copying errors. This kills the ToE right out of the gate without even getting into anything else, because if scientists will do these things to push a myth?We cannot trust there other evidence. Yes that big pile of evidence that has never demonstrated life evolves.
And therefore the cause of the difference?
Yes,I suppose we can, but what would it prove or show?BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Does this also mean that we can compare wolf and dog DNA and find the root of their differences?abelcainsbrother wrote:Yes,however. I don't know if you've looked into Epigenetics but it might be changing the way we think about genes and DNA. It's been awhile since I have looked into it,but it is already more believable than the ToE when it comes to evidence. An example is bees,all bees start out with the same DNA,yet in order to produce queens,the bees feed certian bees "royal jelly" which causes their genes to be expressed totally different,eventhough they have the same DNA and genes when they started out and they develop into queens which look bigger and totally different and have a different role in the hive based on their diet.Epigenetics could change what we eat in the future to help our genes be expressed much better.BGoodForGoodSake wrote:So does this mean we can compare the genes of the siblings and pinpoint the differences in the code?abelcainsbrother wrote:As far as I am aware of yes it is in the genes,but my point is it is not and cannot be used for evidence life evolves,eventhough it is.Darwin came up with his evolution hypothesis based on variation therefore it cannot be used for evidence life evolves. Instead it was scientists job to demonstrate Darwin's hypothesis was true,which they never did.BGoodForGoodSake wrote: But what is the source of this variation, is it in the genes?
And because the never did in order to push this evolution myth up the hill they use variation for evidence life evolves while calling it micro-evolution and now even macro-evolution in order to imply life evolves based on variation but without evidence while making up myths about natural selection,mutations and random DNA copying errors. This kills the ToE right out of the gate without even getting into anything else, because if scientists will do these things to push a myth?We cannot trust there other evidence. Yes that big pile of evidence that has never demonstrated life evolves.
And therefore the cause of the difference?
Well can we then compare the number of differences and use that to determine how closely related two individuals are?abelcainsbrother wrote:Yes,I suppose we can, but what would it prove or show?BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Does this also mean that we can compare wolf and dog DNA and find the root of their differences?abelcainsbrother wrote:Yes,however. I don't know if you've looked into Epigenetics but it might be changing the way we think about genes and DNA. It's been awhile since I have looked into it,but it is already more believable than the ToE when it comes to evidence. An example is bees,all bees start out with the same DNA,yet in order to produce queens,the bees feed certian bees "royal jelly" which causes their genes to be expressed totally different,eventhough they have the same DNA and genes when they started out and they develop into queens which look bigger and totally different and have a different role in the hive based on their diet.Epigenetics could change what we eat in the future to help our genes be expressed much better.BGoodForGoodSake wrote: So does this mean we can compare the genes of the siblings and pinpoint the differences in the code?
And therefore the cause of the difference?
OK but its a waste of time when we already know. We've known for thousands of years all dogs are related to wolves,even Darwin knew it and is a big reason why he assumed life evolves based on this knowledge man has had for thousands of years. Even the ancient Greeks knew dogs came from wolves,so why do we need to waste time in a science lab demonstrating it?The only reason a scientist would want to is if he/she believed life evolves.BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Well can we then compare the number of differences and use that to determine how closely related two individuals are?abelcainsbrother wrote:Yes,I suppose we can, but what would it prove or show?BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Does this also mean that we can compare wolf and dog DNA and find the root of their differences?abelcainsbrother wrote:Yes,however. I don't know if you've looked into Epigenetics but it might be changing the way we think about genes and DNA. It's been awhile since I have looked into it,but it is already more believable than the ToE when it comes to evidence. An example is bees,all bees start out with the same DNA,yet in order to produce queens,the bees feed certian bees "royal jelly" which causes their genes to be expressed totally different,eventhough they have the same DNA and genes when they started out and they develop into queens which look bigger and totally different and have a different role in the hive based on their diet.Epigenetics could change what we eat in the future to help our genes be expressed much better.BGoodForGoodSake wrote: So does this mean we can compare the genes of the siblings and pinpoint the differences in the code?
And therefore the cause of the difference?
Can we then use the same method on wolves and jackals?abelcainsbrother wrote:OK but its a waste of time when we already know. We've known for thousands of years all dogs are related to wolves,even Darwin knew it and is a big reason why he assumed life evolves based on this knowledge man has had for thousands of years. Even the ancient Greeks knew dogs came from wolves,so why do we need to waste time in a science lab demonstrating it?BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Well can we then compare the number of differences and use that to determine how closely related two individuals are?abelcainsbrother wrote:Yes,I suppose we can, but what would it prove or show?BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Does this also mean that we can compare wolf and dog DNA and find the root of their differences?
Yes.BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Can we then use the same method on wolves and jackals?abelcainsbrother wrote:OK but its a waste of time when we already know. We've known for thousands of years all dogs are related to wolves,even Darwin knew it and is a big reason why he assumed life evolves based on this knowledge man has had for thousands of years. Even the ancient Greeks knew dogs came from wolves,so why do we need to waste time in a science lab demonstrating it?BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Well can we then compare the number of differences and use that to determine how closely related two individuals are?abelcainsbrother wrote:Yes,I suppose we can, but what would it prove or show?BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Does this also mean that we can compare wolf and dog DNA and find the root of their differences?
And beteween polar bears and grizzly bears?abelcainsbrother wrote:Yes.BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Can we then use the same method on wolves and jackals?abelcainsbrother wrote: OK but its a waste of time when we already know. We've known for thousands of years all dogs are related to wolves,even Darwin knew it and is a big reason why he assumed life evolves based on this knowledge man has had for thousands of years. Even the ancient Greeks knew dogs came from wolves,so why do we need to waste time in a science lab demonstrating it?
Also, if I bred dogs for size, what is going on with the genes in my pack?abelcainsbrother wrote:Yes.BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Can we then use the same method on wolves and jackals?abelcainsbrother wrote: OK but its a waste of time when we already know. We've known for thousands of years all dogs are related to wolves,even Darwin knew it and is a big reason why he assumed life evolves based on this knowledge man has had for thousands of years. Even the ancient Greeks knew dogs came from wolves,so why do we need to waste time in a science lab demonstrating it?
Probably producing a Great Dain? It's still a dog though and shows normal variation that we already know about.We have different color roses too,again normal variation. My point is and has been that this is not and cannot be evidence life evolves and yet it is used as evidence.BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Also, if I bred dogs for size, what is going on with the genes in my pack?abelcainsbrother wrote:Yes.BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Can we then use the same method on wolves and jackals?abelcainsbrother wrote: OK but its a waste of time when we already know. We've known for thousands of years all dogs are related to wolves,even Darwin knew it and is a big reason why he assumed life evolves based on this knowledge man has had for thousands of years. Even the ancient Greeks knew dogs came from wolves,so why do we need to waste time in a science lab demonstrating it?