Evidence for God from Science

Jbuza wrote: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.

Why would it vanish, what mechanism causes this problem to dissapear?

Jbuza wrote: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.

Wolves from which dogs came from do not have this opportunity in the wild. As social status determines which wolves are able to breed with whom. Also, they are more selective than you suggest.

Jbuza wrote:Also since you have fed your dogs a very high quality diet that demonstrates that displaysia may be as much health related as genetic.

Perhaps geneticly predisposed?

Jbuza wrote:It simply is a developmental problem with the hip socket, and also prone in the labradors that I breed.

This suggests it is genetic.

Jbuza wrote: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.

Perhaps, but then why is it not more common in the wild? Given that it is genetic.

So mutations can persist in populations even though they can be harmful?

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

All the animals in that gene pool tend to look similar. I'm not sure what you are trying to get at. I guess you are asking my why different breeding groups of animals are slightly different. I'm sure it has something to do with the DNA of the animals. The fact that they are not turning out exactley like animals in other gene pools lends evidence to the idea that the genetic material in the breeding population is maintaining traits.


quote="BGoodForGoodSake"]
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.[/quote]

That is true, but how is he going to do this. He is going to remove som e animals from the flock in spite of their fitness to breed. He has to remove the animals because they also can breed, so these animals would keep the desirable mutations from becoming dominant. The flock is going to keep the mutation from changing the flock. If this were not the case, than their would be no need for the slective breeding. All the chickens would reproduce, because they can. The rooster doesn't care what traits the chicken has.

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

I'm not sure how you can come to this conclusion I said the unwanted animals won't just lie down and die. This means that you have to prevent the majority of the flock from breeding in order to get the mutation to dominate the flock. Most of these genteic flocks are the result of selective breeding, yes.

Natural selction is nothing. IT isn't even a mechanism, it is a buzzward that simply means those who can reproduce will. IT's like saying stars that can shine will shine therefore stars shine. It's nothing but a circular nonevidence nothing.

The only way we can even get a mutation to spread is to isolate the individual from the flock.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Perhaps, but then why is it not more common in the wild? Given that it is genetic.

So mutations can persist in populations even though they can be harmful?

I'm not sure that is shown to be genetic. IT is a problem common with large dogs, and is as much a result of nutrition during development as anything.

The hip problem disappears in the wild because mutations are removed by the information within the DNA of the gene pool.

The mutations persist because all the purebred dogs are pretty closely related. IF they were brought back to communication with all dogs, the breed would disappear along with the mutations.

Jbuza wrote:

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

All the animals in that gene pool tend to look similar. I'm not sure what you are trying to get at. I guess you are asking my why different breeding groups of animals are slightly different. I'm sure it has something to do with the DNA of the animals. The fact that they are not turning out exactley like animals in other gene pools lends evidence to the idea that the genetic material in the breeding population is maintaining traits.

Wait disimilar traits equates to maintaing traits?

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: 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.

That is true, but how is he going to do this. He is going to remove som e animals from the flock in spite of their fitness to breed. He has to remove the animals because they also can breed, so these animals would keep the desirable mutations from becoming dominant.

Exactly nature has the criteria of being able to breed, man has other criteria. The result of removing unwanted traits however is the same.

Jbuza wrote:The flock is going to keep the mutation from changing the flock. If this were not the case, than their would be no need for the slective breeding.

Really you mean if I breed dalmations together long enough that they will turn back into wolves?

Jbuza wrote:All the chickens would reproduce, because they can. The rooster doesn't care what traits the chicken has.

In the wild all roosters can breed? Is there not natural competition between them?

Jbuza wrote:

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

I'm not sure how you can come to this conclusion I said the unwanted animals won't just lie down and die.

Which means that active selection maintains certain traits.

Jbuza wrote:This means that you have to prevent the majority of the flock from breeding in order to get the mutation to dominate the flock. Most of these genteic flocks are the result of selective breeding, yes.

Would you agree that maintaining certain traits gets easier with time? Would you also agree that bred populations tend to have less diversity than a wild population due to the selective nature of the breeder?

Jbuza wrote:Natural selction is nothing. IT isn't even a mechanism, it is a buzzward that simply means those who can reproduce will. IT's like saying stars that can shine will shine therefore stars shine. It's nothing but a circular nonevidence nothing.

If natural selection is nothing then why don't flocks returned to the wild retain their bred traits?

Jbuza wrote:The only way we can even get a mutation to spread is to isolate the individual from the flock.

Exactly. Given that different populations have different sets of traits do you think isolation over time will result in distinct populations?

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Perhaps, but then why is it not more common in the wild? Given that it is genetic.

So mutations can persist in populations even though they can be harmful?

I'm not sure that is shown to be genetic. IT is a problem common with large dogs, and is as much a result of nutrition during development as anything.

So being a large breed has nothing to do with genetics? Why are they large then?

Jbuza wrote:The hip problem disappears in the wild because mutations are removed by the information within the DNA of the gene pool.

It isn't because they are breeding with wild dogs? Are you sure the information is being removed? Then where did the information come from?
Are you saying that gene pool's don't change?

Jbuza wrote:The mutations persist because all the purebred dogs are pretty closely related. IF they were brought back to communication with all dogs, the breed would disappear along with the mutations.

Closely related, sounds like your saying that it's genetic. What if they were not brought back into communication but left on a island with no other dogs but plenty of food. Do you think that mutations occuring in this population would be the same as those of other populations?

Jbuza wrote:I'm not sure what you are trying to get at. I guess you are asking my why different breeding groups of animals are slightly different. I'm sure it has something to do with the DNA of the animals. The fact that they are not turning out exactley like animals in other gene pools lends evidence to the idea that the genetic material in the breeding population is maintaining traits.

So why do animals with very different DNA, such as the placental mammals of Central/South America and marsupials of Australia look very similar? The DNA is different, so why don't they look very different? It is because these groups experience a similar environment that has shaped them in similar ways (convergent evolution). DNA does not act as a "restraint" on variation; as was stated earlier, it provides the variation.

On another note, some of your comments make me believe you either don't acknowledge the differences between reproduction in the wild and in captivity/among domesticated animals or you simply ignore sexual selection. You stated

All the chickens would reproduce, because they can. The rooster doesn't care what traits the chicken has.

This may happen in captivity, but in the wild not all individuals reproduce. In many species, one individual of a species DOES care what traits the opposite sex has and chooses accordingly. It is not a blind process where everyone ends up reproducing.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you also made some claim about traits having to become permanent in order to see speciation. This is not a requirement of ToE, so I was wondering how you arrived at this conclusion. Variation is a key component of evolution, and in order to have a trait become permanent, you would have to lose all existing variation save for one form and prevent all future mutations. But, as I stated, permanence of traits is in no way associated with evolution.

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.

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.

Are you trying to say that the process whereby both the hen and rooster supply half the DNA is what controls traits?
-------
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.

Do you have a link to show how a group of isolated amphibians of the same sex will change sex?
------
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.

Sounds like narrative. What evidence do you have that all current world, forward seeing, feline predators are evolved from the Saber Tooth? What evidence do you have that mammal decreased in size?
-------
Both cases for natural selection. One positive change that affects continuation, one negative as it led to extinction.


How does this show that the ability to survive changes traits.
------
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).


Yes I know man is a separate creation and was set up by God to have dominion over the earth, so he needs to be careful of what he does. From an evolution stand point, his actions are as natural as the building of a beehive. A genome sequence is what ensures that animals will stay the same from generation to generation.

Please show how animals are changed by their ability to reproduce.

Jbuza wrote:Do you have a link to show how a group of isolated amphibians of the same sex will change sex?

I know I didn't post the original comments about amphibians, but it is common knowledge that many coral reef fish change sex when one sex become locally extinct. If you do a simple internet search on "sex change in fish" you should find some applicable journal articles.

Please show how animals are changed by their ability to reproduce.

- check out "Sexual Selection" by Malte Andersson (1994), or simply do an internet search on "directional selection" for more examples of reproduction affecting morphology than you can shake a stick at...

NO! No!! STOP. Please dont bump the table the card house will fall down.

I have tried demonstrating how DNA leads to what we observe that animals are remaining stable unless acted upon by design. And all I have got is arguments against this. So in spite of the evidence that animals either reproduce in spite of environmental pressure, or are caused to become extinct by it, you all seem to want to hold onto this idea that the environment is changing the animals.

So can anyone demonstrate how the environment is changing the DNA?

Jbuza wrote: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 in the scientific community. In this case he was refering to haploid's as in sex cells. Perhaps you want to bone up on this a bit further. Also you overlook the fact that the information you linked to was from a page which delves into the the evolution of man and therefore words like haploid become confusing as they can also refer to haploid genetic material like the Y chromosome. And he wanted to delve into genetic recombination.

Jbuza wrote:Not to mention that methylization is actually the obscure word methylation and is basically meaningless jargon.

Scientists need a language of precision. Don't forget that the whole english language was redone just so the language can be more precise for the burgeoning new areas of thought in the late 17th century.

Jbuza wrote: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.

Plenty of results here.http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=met ... tnG=Search

Jbuza wrote:Do you have a link to show how a group of isolated amphibians of the same sex will change sex?

Here you go.
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/164/2/613

thereal wrote:

Jbuza wrote:Do you have a link to show how a group of isolated amphibians of the same sex will change sex?

I know I didn't post the original comments about amphibians, but it is common knowledge that many coral reef fish change sex when one sex become locally extinct. If you do a simple internet search on "sex change in fish" you should find some applicable journal articles.

I see. I'm not sure what this tells us. Some say it is from contaminatnts. Some say it is a hormonal response to finding a like sexed fish, but I'm not sure why both wouldn't change.

Is this ecidence for natural selection ar just an ability of some fish and frogs?

Jbuza wrote:NO! No!! STOP. Please dont bump the table the card house will fall down.

I have tried demonstrating how DNA leads to what we observe that animals are remaining stable unless acted upon by design. And all I have got is arguments against this. So in spite of the evidence that animals either reproduce in spite of environmental pressure, or are caused to become extinct by it, you all seem to want to hold onto this idea that the environment is changing the animals.

So can anyone demonstrate how the environment is changing the DNA?

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.

thereal wrote:

Jbuza wrote:Do you have a link to show how a group of isolated amphibians of the same sex will change sex?

I know I didn't post the original comments about amphibians, but it is common knowledge that many coral reef fish change sex when one sex become locally extinct. If you do a simple internet search on "sex change in fish" you should find some applicable journal articles.

I see. I'm not sure what this tells us. Some say it is from contaminatnts. Some say it is a hormonal response to finding a like sexed fish, but I'm not sure why both wouldn't change.

Is this ecidence for natural selection ar just an ability of some fish and frogs?

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote:NO! No!! STOP. Please dont bump the table the card house will fall down.

I have tried demonstrating how DNA leads to what we observe that animals are remaining stable unless acted upon by design. And all I have got is arguments against this. So in spite of the evidence that animals either reproduce in spite of environmental pressure, or are caused to become extinct by it, you all seem to want to hold onto this idea that the environment is changing the animals.

So can anyone demonstrate how the environment is changing the DNA?

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.