|
|
COMMENTS:
Also, why not check out my ballot on evolution where I ask the same question. Nobody answered, or even tried to answer it.
It is my opinion, backed up by observation and experiment, that adatation is incapable of giving rise to different animals, thereby helping to disprove the theory of evolution.
Voted : The genetic pool is only so deep
In order for it to be totally limitless, there would have to be an infinite number of genetic profiles to draw upon.
(error in image display)
Please watch this for answer http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=LEGQu3cm3CE
"Nobody answered, or even tried to answer it."
Don't even start that. You posted that comment like last night. And on that note, you've refused to post on the ballot explaining your creationist beliefs at least 4 times. Still awaiting your response so that I may treat your beliefs with the same relentless antagonizing with which you've treated my own. (yes, I consider you calling us "evo fundies" and calling evolutionary theory a "whacko theory" to be antagonizing)
To answer your question....
Firstly, what truthseeker says is a bit part of it. The number of genetic variants in an animal are nearly limitless, but the number that are useful to humans is very limited.
Secondly, the horse example is insane, so I hope you were kidding. That horse would be an insta-cripple his first race. And what you are getting at here is NOT breeding. You can try pretty hard, but you won't get a finch to screw a horse. On this note, however, science is doing quite well at taking useful genes and moving them between organisms. Google the slew of GMOs and odd GFP organisms. They're even working on anti-aging genetic modifications. Humans may be living 150 years in the very near future thanks to this science.
You will notice when searching these things, that you will often run into controversy. Herein lies the other part of the problem. The brand of science you're putting forth is still largely seen as frankenstein science.
I TOTALLY misread the horse part. My bad on that, but the rest of my points stand.
Another consideration is time-scale. Probably not a lot of explaining to do on that one.
"Secondly, the horse example is insane, so I hope you were kidding. That horse would be an insta-cripple his first race. And what you are getting at here is NOT breeding. You can try pretty hard, but you won't get a finch to screw a horse."
And just incase you were like "what the f*** is he thinking?"... I read light bones and subconciously associated that with birds such that I thought I actually read that.
No problem, ThisIsNate. Birds screwing horses is pretty insane, but I assure you that horse breeders breed for slender horses with light bones and strong muscles which tend to be faster for racing.
It is a fact, though, that after hundreds of years of breeding racehorses they aren't getting any faster. The limit to just how much they can push the existing gene pool has been reached.
By the way I will not talk about my beliefs on a ballot about so-called scientific theories. I am trying to show that evolution does not hold up to the available evidence. I am not talking about my beliefs for you to try to shoot them down. It has nothing to do with this or my other post. Can you understand how discussing a scientific theory has nothing to do with religious beliefs? It souldn't happen with any other theory, would it?
Your posts aren't really related to the question. Genetic modification is neither here nor there.
Steelhamster's post, such as it is, deals with so-called speciation, more specifically, where a population splits off and adapts to the point where they no longer breed. Again he has avoided answering the question. Again he has presented evidence of adaptation and used it to try to prove common ancestry for all species. This is clearly inadequate.
ThisIsNate. Evo-fundie fits really quite well. Evolution is a belief. There is no evidence that all species evolved from a common ancestor. In fact the evidence suggests otherwise. The fossil record shows only well defined, well adapted species that stay the same and do not gradually change. Therefore your aggressive promotion of your belief makes the label apt.
I have considered the timescale, and basically, it means nothing. If there is a limit to what can be achieved with selective breeding, and by extension natural selection, then that limit will remain. Agreed?
"and by extension natural selection"
There's your key. Human's breeding things in no way mimics natural selection. Fact is, humans will always be looking for roughly the same things in the animals the breed. In birds, more meat. In work animals, more musculature. Things of this nature.
Natural selection is completely different than artificial selection. Natural selection may select for smaller animals, larger animals, green animals, blue animals, hairy animals, bald animals... well you get the idea.
I would agree that artificial breeding in many species has reached some climax point. However, with time-scale I can't be certain.
For me, it's hard to compare the time-scale and mechanisms of natural selection vs. artificial selection. (Yes, there is a widely used term artificial selection to differentiate selective breeding from natural selection, btw.)
On one end of the spectrum is natural selection whereby change occurs over millions of years. You must also realize that it's not as if all specimens with a particularly accentuated trait are going to completely dominate others on the breeding scene. They will simply fare a bit better and thus over millions of years their particular genetic make-up will be more common.
In natural selection, however, you may essentially eliminate those breeders who lack the trait you're selecting for, thereby increasing the incidence of that genetic variant much, much faster.
More on this later perhaps, but I have a class to scuttle off to.
"By the way I will not talk about my beliefs on a ballot about so-called scientific theories."
http://www.bestandworst.com/v/132251.htm
That is a non-science ballot that I would like your comment on. I won't even reply, I just want to know what it is you believe in. I think that's a perfectly fair request.
"I am trying to show that evolution does not hold up to the available evidence. I am trying to show that evolution does not hold up to the available evidence. I am not talking about my beliefs for you to try to shoot them down. It has nothing to do with this or my other post. Can you understand how discussing a scientific theory has nothing to do with religious beliefs?"
I completely disagree with this. The fact that your beliefs are religious rather than scientific does not exempt them from scrutiny. This is just absurd to me.
If you would like to see examples of evolution and adaptation, please research the Cichlid fish that breed in Lake Malawi, where one species that entered the lake a million years ago has spawned 500 + NEW species.
Also for an example of fast adaptation, there is the peppered moth in England, that due to the industrial revolution went from peppery white to black in order to avoid predators, and when the clean air act was passed in the 1950's they reverted back to their peppery white colour.
So there is two examples of adaptation and speciation.
Hi Steelhamster. I will research the Cichlids in Lake Malawi because I know nothing about them. However I know that the peppered moths did not evolve in the slightest. They did not change the colour of their wings. Both types, light and dark, were in the gene pool. Even when mostly dark moths were about because everything was covered in Industrial Revolution crap, the gene that formed light winged moths was still there, and when the air quality was improved it wouldn't take long for them to come back. Also peppered moths tend to land on beneath leaves rather than tree trunks. Where are the green moths?
Evolution is defined as a change in allele frequency over time. Recessive genes may still be there, but that's hardly the point. Again, evolution does not work towards a goal, which you may or may not be insinuating is the extirpation of certain genetic material. Natural selection operates on phenotypical traits, which are of course coded for by genetic traits.
That was incredibly scatter-brained, but yeah. I'm feeling to lazy to organize it into full thoughts.
And apologies to those participating in this discussion, but I'm bowing out. I feel that the only point in defending my beliefs is to try and convince another person that they are perfectly valid. I've decided in this case that it will be utterly impossible, and will thus be spending my energy and interest elsewhere.
Feel free to private message me if you want my opinion on a specific matter.
Later ThisIsNate :o) I'll be watching out for those changing allele frequencies.
|
|
