Flaws in Evolution

[BGoodForGoodSake]

You let them breed and the selective pressures revert back to those of nature. And of course nature prefers different traits than man.

Isolation of such a flock however will keep certain traits from reentering the population. Isolation is the key here.

Really I'm not sure nature cares what traits the chicken has. Certianly the male rooster is only interested in one trait. A hen in heat. The point is that the mutation doesn't remain permanent. The rooster with the mutation doesn't change the whole flock the whole flock changes the rooster with the mutation.

This may be the case but the important question is why?
Does the trait dissapear altogether or does it just get diluted back into the population?

Nature does care, otherwise we would have all sorts of odd shaped chickens in the wild.

[Jbuza]

You let them breed and the selective pressures revert back to those of nature. And of course nature prefers different traits than man.

Isolation of such a flock however will keep certain traits from reentering the population. Isolation is the key here.

Really I'm not sure nature cares what traits the chicken has. Certianly the male rooster is only interested in one trait. A hen in heat. The point is that the mutation doesn't remain permanent. The rooster with the mutation doesn't change the whole flock the whole flock changes the rooster with the mutation.

This may be the case but the important question is why?
Does the trait dissapear altogether or does it just get diluted back into the population?

Nature does care, otherwise we would have all sorts of odd shaped chickens in the wild.

The information in the Chickens DNA protects the flock from all sorts of odd shaped chickens

[BGoodForGoodSake]

The information in the Chickens DNA protects the flock from all sorts of odd shaped chickens

No it is nature which prevents the odd shaped chickens.
DNA is the source of the odd shapes.

[Mastriani]

Due to processes of mapped, sequenced DNA, the assertion that "nature" is responsible for the shape of any creature, including the fowl/avies in question , is ignorant.

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.

"Nature" is not an emotional state nor a nuturing mother figure. It is the human communication catch all term for a force of most often unpredictable activity that we have separated ourselves from, ergo, do not maintain real understanding of.

[Jbuza]

Natural selection is an abstract keyword to try and lend evidence to a theory that doesn't work. IT baiscally means that the animals that reproduce are more likely to reproduce.

Evolution requires an animal to have a mutation and for that mutation to essentially change the shape or characteristics of the entire flock.

This is not what happens the entire flock acts to insulate itself from a mutation.

I'm not sure how you are interpreting this known fact into evolution, but the observation clearly shows that mutations do not change the flock.

[Mastriani]

The basic tenants of the physical properties of this world tend to disagree with you on that sir.

The general rule with natural selection is that a "stress" of environmental nature impedes flock/herd migration, procreation, longevity, etc. As a consequence of such, excluding isolated populations which will eventually fail, is that there is a genome change that corresponds in a percentage of the population, creating future changes in the overall population, or if you prefer, mutations.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Due to processes of mapped, sequenced DNA, the assertion that "nature" is responsible for the shape of any creature, including the fowl/avies in question , is ignorant.

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.

"Nature" is not an emotional state nor a nuturing mother figure. It is the human communication catch all term for a force of most often unpredictable activity that we have separated ourselves from, ergo, do not maintain real understanding of.

Well of course.
=)

Just trying to keep it simple.

[Jbuza]

The basic tenants of the physical properties of this world tend to disagree with you on that sir.

The general rule with natural selection is that a "stress" of environmental nature impedes flock/herd migration, procreation, longevity, etc. As a consequence of such, excluding isolated populations which will eventually fail, is that there is a genome change that corresponds in a percentage of the population, creating future changes in the overall population, or if you prefer, mutations.

I'm sorry that you have come with graet authority and been wrong. It is most helpful when trying to speak with authority to be correct. Do you bring more high speech along with you to appear to have knowledge?

What basic tennats are you talking about? what properties are you talking about? I'm nore sure that you have said anything meaningfull yet. Why don't you demonstrate natural selection.

You will find that all the observations that we have made demonstrate that the gene pool resists change. You can make claims and talk about tenants, by the way are those the party lines of science, but you have no actual evidence to show that nautral selection is anything other than a buzzword.

All you have is an abstract idea that means the reproductively successful will reproduce.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

To put it simply Jbuza, the selective pressures found in nature shaped the wild fowls and led that population to have the features that they have.

Remove them and breed them selectively for other traits and the selective pressures will shape them for what the breeder desires.

So replacing them back into the wild, the bred form will, through interbreeding with the wild population return to their original form after several generations. This is because you are returning them to the same conditions from which they came.

Conversly if you take some wild fowl and put them in the breeding population it's traits will be bred out of the breeding stock after several generations.

Therefore it can be concluded that there are selective pressures in the wild. Otherwise what is causing the bred traits to dissapear?

[Mastriani]

I apologize if my rhetoric offends, I am just of the habit of using correct, standardized English for any discourse, that is how I was reared. Most often it lends itself to better comprehension for other conversationalists involved.

Taking a population of amphibians, it is a known/studied/observed behavior that if members become isolated and the population is single gendered, within the same generation, that environmental stress will create gender change.

The Saber Toothed tiger: ancestor of current world, forward seeing, feline predators. Lived during a time when mammals that were present were decreasing in size, due to the Ice Age. Due to smaller sustainance sources and an inability to adapt, they declined to extinction.

Both cases for natural selection. One positive change that affects continuation, one negative as it led to extinction.

Animals whose genome sequences resist change, or are forced by environmental stresses to adapt too rapidly, decline to extinction. If this were not true, then extinction would not be a usable phrase as all representative species would still be present to some degree, (this statement made appreciably negating the foul muck of humanity in destroying the flora and fawna of the world).

[Jbuza]

-------------

To put it simply Jbuza, the selective pressures found in nature shaped the wild fowls and led that population to have the features that they have.

No this is worng, this is not what we observe. Look IF you believe evolution to be true and want to interpret some hidden past differently than what we actually observe, than go hang out in some tearoom and talk philosophy.

What we observe is that inspite of environmental pressures the flock retains its shape.

Conversly if you take some wild fowl and put them in the breeding population it's traits will be bred out of the breeding stock after several generations.

I can assure you that letting a common barnyeard rooster breed your genetic flock of hackle chickens will ruin your program and severly reduce the aulity of the dry fly hackle.

Remove them and breed them selectively for other traits and the selective pressures will shape them for what the breeder desires.

I can further assure you that the other roosters and hens are not going to lay down and die. You are making claims, how about illustrate how or where this is happening without just assuming that your worldview is correct. IF you are correct and evolution true show how the individual is changing the flock.

[Mastriani]

I can give you are perfect example Mr. Jbuza.

I raise Canecorso, Itialian Mastiffs. The alpha male I received as a pup had the same heart and hip complications that is so overly documented about this type of canine.

I changed his eating habits, returned him to his species appropriate diet - raw, bloody meat, organs, sinew and bone. I found a female that had less health conflicts than he, and bred. I have done this continually for 8 generations. Each successive generation, with species appropriate diet, has shown progress.

To the point: The litter I was gifted with in September, 5 individuals, shows no signs of heart of condition and hip displaysia is a relative 93-95% removed.

I have forced natural selection, to the benefit of the canines.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

-------------

To put it simply Jbuza, the selective pressures found in nature shaped the wild fowls and led that population to have the features that they have.

No this is worng, this is not what we observe. Look IF you believe evolution to be true and want to interpret some hidden past differently than what we actually observe, than go hang out in some tearoom and talk philosophy.

DNA does not maintain a populations traits. If they did then why are genetically isolated species like the puma not the same everywhere?

Conversly if you take some wild fowl and put them in the breeding population it's traits will be bred out of the breeding stock after several generations.

I can assure you that letting a common barnyeard rooster breed your genetic flock of hackle chickens will ruin your program and severly reduce the aulity of the dry fly hackle.

This may be so but where did this genetically isolated group of birds originate from? If the breeder wanted to he would be able to breedout the unwanted traits.

Remove them and breed them selectively for other traits and the selective pressures will shape them for what the breeder desires.

I can further assure you that the other roosters and hens are not going to lay down and die. You are making claims, how about illustrate how or where this is happening without just assuming that your worldview is correct. IF you are correct and evolution true show how the individual is changing the flock.

Are you saying that these domestic fowl were not the result of selective breeding? I thought you said that they originated from the wild.

[Byblos]

I can give you are perfect example Mr. Jbuza.

I raise Canecorso, Itialian Mastiffs. The alpha male I received as a pup had the same heart and hip complications that is so overly documented about this type of canine.

I changed his eating habits, returned him to his species appropriate diet - raw, bloody meat, organs, sinew and bone. I found a female that had less health conflicts than he, and bred. I have done this continually for 8 generations. Each successive generation, with species appropriate diet, has shown progress.

To the point: The litter I was gifted with in September, 5 individuals, shows no signs of heart of condition and hip displaysia is a relative 93-95% removed.

I have forced natural selection, to the benefit of the canines.

There's an inherent contradiction in there somewhere, in't there?

[Jbuza]

I can give you are perfect example Mr. Jbuza.

I raise Canecorso, Itialian Mastiffs. The alpha male I received as a pup had the same heart and hip complications that is so overly documented about this type of canine.

I changed his eating habits, returned him to his species appropriate diet - raw, bloody meat, organs, sinew and bone. I found a female that had less health conflicts than he, and bred. I have done this continually for 8 generations. Each successive generation, with species appropriate diet, has shown progress.

To the point: The litter I was gifted with in September, 5 individuals, shows no signs of heart of condition and hip displaysia is a relative 93-95% removed.

I have forced natural selection, to the benefit of the canines.

This desmonstrates natural selection? Are you saying that you feed your animals a better diet and they are healthier?

I fail to see the point of this. The dog that you have would care less if the ***** has hip problems or not. If any ***** came around and she was in heat guess what he would breed her. The dog without displaysia and with displaysia are both going to survive. The point of the matter is that if you take these dogs back to a pack state the hip problem is going to vanish.

I don't see how you forced natural selection. You presented one ***** to your dog, and he bred her. He would reproduce with any dog. Also since you have fed your dogs a very high quality diet that demonstrates that displaysia may be as much health related as genetic. It simply is a developmental problem with the hip socket, and also prone in the labradors that I breed.

While displaysia is uncomfortable for the animal and unwanted by humans, it has little impact on his ability to survive, especially since severre symptome may be delayed until later years.