Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-11-2015, 07:39 AM (This post was last modified: 11-11-2015 08:15 AM by Free Thought.)
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(11-11-2015 07:17 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  
(11-11-2015 06:54 AM)Old Man Marsh Wrote:  Animals don't adapt through selective breeding to better suit their environment. They were selectively bred to fulfill a specific purpose.

Ok. I am not going to question you. I am by no means any authority in the fields of biology. This may be something Rocketsurgen may better explain to me.

No. You've got it all wrong from the beginning. I understand your meaning, but if you don't understand something, you should raise questions so that others may assist you in expanding your intellectual horizons. Just make sure you're not a douche about it like... well every troll that has ever 'graced' the board: genuine questions warrant rewarding answers.

I most certainly don't have authority in biology, but Marsh is right when it comes to dogs; they didn't get where they are today by adapting to their environment as species normally would under standard selective pressures. For dogs (among other domesticated species), humans were the primary selection pressure; humans placed dogs in genetic isolation by preventing their prime companions from breeding with dogs considered lesser in some way, humans at the same time placed selection pressures on their wolf-like canine friends; only the fastest of the pack were allowed to breed, or the most powerful, or the smartest, or the most pleasing to the eye, etcetera. With certain desired traits, others formed along the ride to accompany the gradual alteration of the breed, such as overall size or slightness of frame.

The imposition of artificial genetic barriers and selection pressures pushed dogs down the ever diverging paths made by the fickle whims of humans, leading to the vast varieties we see today; they were all unknowingly built generation by generation by humans to fit their desires.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Free Thought's post
11-11-2015, 08:14 AM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(11-11-2015 07:38 AM)Old Man Marsh Wrote:  
(11-11-2015 07:17 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Ok. I am not going to question you. I am by no means any authority in the fields of biology. This may be something Rocketsurgen may better explain to me.

I'm no authority on it either. Rock can definitely offer a better explanation than I can.

I'm not sure I fully understand what his question is, other than why didn't evolution produce the varieties of dogs we see today, which FT seems to have answered quite solidly. Artificial selection is a great example of humans performing the sorts of genetic isolation it takes to cause a population to "veer" in a new direction via Natural Selection; we just do it more efficiently because we make the choices actively rather than the randomness of nature and the vagaries of what factors cause genetic isolation in real-world populations.

If there was some aspect of the question I missed, let me know.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
11-11-2015, 09:43 AM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(11-11-2015 08:14 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(11-11-2015 07:38 AM)Old Man Marsh Wrote:  I'm no authority on it either. Rock can definitely offer a better explanation than I can.

I'm not sure I fully understand what his question is, other than why didn't evolution produce the varieties of dogs we see today, which FT seems to have answered quite solidly. Artificial selection is a great example of humans performing the sorts of genetic isolation it takes to cause a population to "veer" in a new direction via Natural Selection; we just do it more efficiently because we make the choices actively rather than the randomness of nature and the vagaries of what factors cause genetic isolation in real-world populations.

If there was some aspect of the question I missed, let me know.
The question was basically is it probable that animals can adapt through selective breeding aka natural selection in the same ways that we breed different types of dogs? I believe it is completely possible.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2015, 09:48 AM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
I think the people who have been arguing (about the dog breeding thing) are talking past each other. I don't think jason_delisle was arguing against evolution -- he was actually supporting it, using the example of dog breeding in the same way that Darwin used the example of pigeon breeding -- as an analogy to show the basic principle of selection.

Rocket Surgeon and Free Thought both did a good job of explaining the details, but I'm pretty sure Jason isn't disagreeing with either of them, just making the same point in a different way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2015, 09:59 AM (This post was last modified: 11-11-2015 10:17 AM by jason_delisle.)
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(11-11-2015 09:48 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  I think the people who have been arguing (about the dog breeding thing) are talking past each other. I don't think jason_delisle was arguing against evolution -- he was actually supporting it, using the example of dog breeding in the same way that Darwin used the example of pigeon breeding -- as an analogy to show the basic principle of selection.

Rocket Surgeon and Free Thought both did a good job of explaining the details, but I'm pretty sure Jason isn't disagreeing with either of them, just making the same point in a different way.
Exactly. Thank you. I hate text sometimes. Too easy to be misunderstood.

I guess I am what some call a "theistic evolutionist". Basically in layman's terms it means I still believe in God but I believe that evolution is possible and perhaps in some regards I believe that God used evolution as part of his process in creation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2015, 01:45 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(11-11-2015 09:59 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  
(11-11-2015 09:48 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  I think the people who have been arguing (about the dog breeding thing) are talking past each other. I don't think jason_delisle was arguing against evolution -- he was actually supporting it, using the example of dog breeding in the same way that Darwin used the example of pigeon breeding -- as an analogy to show the basic principle of selection.

Rocket Surgeon and Free Thought both did a good job of explaining the details, but I'm pretty sure Jason isn't disagreeing with either of them, just making the same point in a different way.
Exactly. Thank you. I hate text sometimes. Too easy to be misunderstood.

I guess I am what some call a "theistic evolutionist". Basically in layman's terms it means I still believe in God but I believe that evolution is possible and perhaps in some regards I believe that God used evolution as part of his process in creation.

Welcome to the vast majority of Christians, Jason.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free Thought's post
11-11-2015, 02:21 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(11-11-2015 06:34 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  
(11-11-2015 04:28 AM)Banjo Wrote:  Nature does do it over millions of years.

Humans can do many things. Respect your species.

You seemed ok earlier. Please don't show yourself to be uneducated. I could not stand it.

Humans are quite extraordinary animals. If we can invent the internet and put men on the moon and objects in space, we can mix breed dogs.
You failed to see the context. I was supporting evolution by stating an obvious case where animals adapt through selective breeding to better suit their environment. If people can do it with dogs, it seems logical to assume that other animals can do it in nature.

So I did. Very sorry Jason. I did not read back far enough.

Carry on and accept my apologies.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
11-11-2015, 02:31 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(11-11-2015 09:43 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  was basically is it probable that animals can adapt through selective breeding aka natural selection in the same ways that we breed different types of dogs? I believe it is completely possible.

The process is identical-- dogs have sex and make puppies; those pups have the characteristics passed down to them by their parents, with occasional novel mutations popping up. If you isolate a group of them with particular traits (either by natural means, like a group that migrates away from the rest, or by artificially selecting which dogs are allowed to breed with which others) then you get only those traits passed on instead of "mixed back in" with the general species gene pool. That sub-group then mutates in a new direction, simply by the fact that they're only passing down the set of genes found in that sub-group, and not the overall species gene pool.

With enough generations, you get two groups whose DNA is so different it will no longer line-up to produce viable offspring or whose offspring are sterile (e.g. the mules produced by mating horses and donkeys), or their behaviors are so different that they don't naturally mate in the wild (e.g. tigers and lions).

It's really not that complicated to understand, I think. The problem is we tend to see genes not as "pools" spread out among an entire species, but in a linear fashion, parent-to-kid, which is why you get people saying silly things like "Cats don't give birth to dogs!!" Rolleyes

Imagine every human being on earth... all seven billion of us. That's the human gene pool. Until fairly recently in history (a few thousand years ago), we were geographically isolated from one another, and that isolation allowed the separated groups who were not exchanging DNA from outsiders in their local gene pools to diverge into the races we see, today. In the last 10,000 years or so, we've expanded to the point that those groups are again in contact, and we're seeing the overall human gene pool heading back toward a collective mix. But the existence of white people (European ancestors were not white-skinned until 20,000 years ago, at the earliest, and those who first settled Europe were dark-skinned, we now know from genetic analysis of older bones which still contain DNA. The research seems to even indicate that our "Caucasian" characteristics did not enter and spread through the small European hunter-gatherer gene pool until between 8,000 and 12,000 years ago, possibly connected to the arrival of agricultural technology/lifestyles.) But the fact is that the races exist because of that tendency of isolated populations to diverge from their original form.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
11-11-2015, 04:15 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(04-08-2011 09:21 AM)digitali Wrote:  Do they know that if they succeed, it doesn't prove creationism anyway?Smile

Pure ignorance. it is like trying to disprove sunlight.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2015, 04:16 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(11-11-2015 09:59 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  
(11-11-2015 09:48 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  I think the people who have been arguing (about the dog breeding thing) are talking past each other. I don't think jason_delisle was arguing against evolution -- he was actually supporting it, using the example of dog breeding in the same way that Darwin used the example of pigeon breeding -- as an analogy to show the basic principle of selection.

Rocket Surgeon and Free Thought both did a good job of explaining the details, but I'm pretty sure Jason isn't disagreeing with either of them, just making the same point in a different way.
Exactly. Thank you. I hate text sometimes. Too easy to be misunderstood.

I guess I am what some call a "theistic evolutionist". Basically in layman's terms it means I still believe in God but I believe that evolution is possible and perhaps in some regards I believe that God used evolution as part of his process in creation.

Evolution doesn't require belief or faith, it is a fact, is observable, predictable and provable......unlike god.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: