Dr Collins, top geneticist, and CHRISTIAN....

[Montrovant]

I'm going to try this again.

YWC, it is rude to copy/paste so much all the time. It makes for huge page lengths, and if someone doesn't want to read whatever it is you are posting, they have to scroll through a wall of text. It doesn't make your point any better than a link. It isn't going to cause anyone to read it if they wouldn't have bothered clicking on a link. Please, please, only post either a short snippet or summary and then provide a link, rather than putting up these constant text walls. I can't speak for anyone else, but in my case, rather than in any way helping your argument, it makes me want to just ignore your posts or stop reading this thread because it's very annoying.

I get that you aren't being intentionally rude, you just want to be sure the articles/texts are read, but it really isn't a good way to post.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I'm going to try this again.

YWC, it is rude to copy/paste so much all the time. It makes for huge page lengths, and if someone doesn't want to read whatever it is you are posting, they have to scroll through a wall of text. It doesn't make your point any better than a link. It isn't going to cause anyone to read it if they wouldn't have bothered clicking on a link. Please, please, only post either a short snippet or summary and then provide a link, rather than putting up these constant text walls. I can't speak for anyone else, but in my case, rather than in any way helping your argument, it makes me want to just ignore your posts or stop reading this thread because it's very annoying.

I get that you aren't being intentionally rude, you just want to be sure the articles/texts are read, but it really isn't a good way to post.

From now on i will take your advice and just give a brief summary and give a link. That is true there is a lot of information if one does not read it all they will not understand how the figures were reached. I kinda thought i was doing a favor by posting the whole article.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Question to Creationist adherents here:

Did Neanderthal mankind live? If so, when? Where? How long ago did Neanderthal die out? How long was Neanderthal on this planet? Did Neanderthal man die of mutations? Or was there another reason?

Do Creationists have a way of acknowledging and explaining Neanderthal man?

More generally, if a speicies of plant or animal dies out because of "mutations", how is that part of a creator's plan? Isn't a creator supposed to be creating perfect living things? Did Neanderthal man fall from grace for not accepting Jesus as their lord?

(By the way, for you science fans, I'm not arguing that Neanderthal's demise was due to mutations, but I would like to hear about extinct human-like species, and how creationist believers deal with THAT evidence.)

To be honest, creationist are divided on the neanderthals. They have many theories, and i just don't see any that i can say i agree with. Both sides do agree they were human. Some believe they interbred with humans, and some believe they were a separate tribe that came out of babylon. They were nomadic and migrated down to Africa, and eventually died out from disease,genetic disorders, and competing for food with other healthier humans.

But that kind of speculation i try to avoid. I do have my theories on this though that i will share but no way to back them up.

The bible say's that after cain killed able he was banished to the land of Nod.That is where cain took a wife and produced offspring. But that is the only mention of the land of Nod and cain.But evidently there were people in the land of Nod but the bible didn't go in to detail about who or where they came from.

This is where speculation is needed. Could the neanderthals be descendants of cain ? Or could the neanderthals be the people of Nod ? The bible just did not go in to details. But i think they were the people of Nod that only cain had offspring with. I believed they died out in the global flood.Maybe God created them to cross with the descendants of Adam, after adams sin. But they were never mentioned again.

My other theory is they were a group of humans that inbred to the point that mutations completely wiped them out. What time frame have no clue, i was not there.

 

[cbirch2]

Cbirch.

Mutations are certainly real. They have profound effects on our lives. And, according to the neo-Darwinian evolutionists, mutations are the raw material for evolution.

But is that possible? Can mutations produce real evolutionary changes? Don’t make any mistakes here. Mutations are real; they’re something we observe; they do make changes in traits. But the question remains: do they produce evolutionary changes? Do they really produce new traits? Do they really help to explain that postulated change from molecules to man, or fish to philosopher?

The answer seems to be: “Mutations, yes. Evolution, no.” In the last analysis, mutations really don’t help evolutionary theory at all. There are three major problems or limits (and many minor ones) that prevent scientific extrapolation from mutational change to evolutionary change.

(1) Mathematical challenges. Problem number one is the mathematical. I won’t dwell on this one, because it’s written up in many books and widely acknowledged by evolutionists themselves as a serious problem for their theory.

Fortunately, mutations are very rare. They occur on an average of perhaps once in every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule (107, a one followed by seven zeroes). That’s fairly rare. On the other hand, it’s not that rare. Our bodies contain nearly 100 trillion cells (1014). So the odds are quite good that we have a couple of cells with a mutated form of almost any gene. A test tube can hold millions of bacteria, so, again, the odds are quite good that there will be mutant forms among them.

The mathematical problem for evolution comes when you want a series of related mutations. The odds of getting two mutations that are related to one another is the product of the separate probabilities: one in 107 x 107, or 1014. That’s a one followed by 14 zeroes, a hundred trillion! Any two mutations might produce no more than a fly with a wavy edge on a bent wing. That’s a long way from producing a truly new structure, and certainly a long way from changing a fly into some new kind of organism. You need more mutations for that. So, what are the odds of getting three mutations in a row? That’s one in a billion trillion (1021). Suddenly, the ocean isn’t big enough to hold enough bacteria to make it likely for you to find a bacterium with three simultaneous or sequential related mutations.

What about trying for four related mutations? One in 1028. Suddenly, the earth isn’t big enough to hold enough organisms to make that very likely. And we’re talking about only four mutations. It would take many more than that to change a fish into a philosopher, or even a fish into a frog. Four mutations don’t even make a start toward any real evolution. But already at this point some evolutionists have given up the classic idea of evolution, because it just plainly doesn’t work.

It was at this level (just four related mutations) that microbiologists gave up on the idea that mutations could explain why some bacteria are resistant to four different antibiotics at the same time. The odds against the mutation explanation were simply too great, so they began to look for another mechanism—and they found it. First of all, using cultures that are routinely kept for long periods of time, they found out that bacteria were resistant to antibiotics, even before commercial antibiotics were “invented.” Genetic variability was “built right into” the bacteria. Did the nonresistant varieties get resistant by mutation? No. Resistant forms were already present. Furthermore, certain bacteria have little rings of DNA, called plasmids, that they trade around among themselves, and they passed on their resistance to antibiotics in that way. It wasn’t mutation and asexual reproduction at all, just ordinary recombination and variation within kind.

Mutations

There are several problems with this.

First, your using an extremely simple arithmetic calculation to determine how fast evolution is going to happen. Its misleading and you know it. It doesnt take into account which size the mutation is, is it the size of a single base or a whole chromosome. Your not addressing multiple generations at all, which for bacteria can take less than a day. You dont mention gene flow or any type of complicated natural selection at all.

Second, you mutation numbers come from Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics. So id probably like a number from a legitimate source if im expected to take it seriously. Mutations occur "once in every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule"? No. They can occur many times in a single duplication.

Third, what do you mean related mutation? That is a useless term. Small changes in sequences of genes or bases cause a variation in the expression of a certain protein. A single mutated base causes it to code for a different animo acid and therefore a new protein. The slightly different protein has slightly different function. Life is all about the expression of proteins, as is evolution. Therefore simple changes in DNA can cause slightly varied physical traits. Like how expression of the protein BMP4 played a role in the development of darwin's finches' beaks.

Fourth, it seems like you greatly underestimate the total amount of bacteria in a population, and how fast bacteria reproduce. Bacteria reproduce once a day, even faster. The total amount of bacterial life on earth is estimated to be 5 million trillion trillion (First-Ever Scientific Estimate Of Total Bacteria On Earth Shows Far Greater Numbers Than Ever Known Before), so your argument that mutations couldnt occur fast enough is totally wrong. Those mutations could occur in a population of bacteria in a day. So it doesnt even matter that your entire premise of "related mutations" makes no sense.

Five, you dont take into account sexual reproduction at all. Sexual reproduction greatly increases the number of mutations in a single organism. Your numbers more likely model a single cell reproducing asexually over generations, they dont take into account sexual reproduction or anything but the simplest type of mutation. In a culture of asexual bacteria your number were wrong; in a population of sexual organisms your numbers are totally meaningless.


Super not impressed. I threw numbers at you before about the human genome but you seemed to brush that off as meaningless garbage. The human genome has 3 billion base pairs. Which, in terms of raw information, means that if one beneficial mutation spread throughout a population in a year it would only take about 3 billion years to go from a single bacteria to the human genome you deem so "information-rich", whatever that means.

 

[AllieBaba]

I would like to address that part specifically. For one, we know exactly how DNA stores information. Sequences of bases code for an amino acid chain. Your article correctly identifies start and stop codons, congrats. Your article is extremely misleading. It points of facts, its correct a lot of the time, but its misleading you the entire time. You claim that 98% of the human genome is "junk DNA", and your wrong. The main argument is that scientists refer to this as junk DNA, but its not. The correct term is noncoding DNA, because they arent junk. They control expression of genes, include ribosomal RNA, and sometimes are several duplicates of the same gene. Metainformation, you would call it. Your article correctly states that too. The fact that 98% of RNA doesnt directly code protein has nothing to do with intelligent design. But the really interesting part is the last part. How exactly is human DNA, or any organisms DNA, "deteriorating"? Furthermore, explain what exactly you mean by deteriorating. Will human kind degenerate into a mutated mess? There is no such thing as DNA "deterioration". An entire population does not simply genetically deteriorate.

If a gene pool gets to small it most certainly can happen. I don't think you realize how damaging mutations can be.

I dont think you realize anything your talking about? I think i understand pretty well how damaging mutations can be. Mutations dont make gene pools smaller. Doesnt happen.

I already posted the evidence that it does, btw. Many pages ago. A couple of noted genetecists saying exactly that.

 

[cbirch2]

Question to Creationist adherents here:

Did Neanderthal mankind live? If so, when? Where? How long ago did Neanderthal die out? How long was Neanderthal on this planet? Did Neanderthal man die of mutations? Or was there another reason?

Do Creationists have a way of acknowledging and explaining Neanderthal man?

More generally, if a speicies of plant or animal dies out because of "mutations", how is that part of a creator's plan? Isn't a creator supposed to be creating perfect living things? Did Neanderthal man fall from grace for not accepting Jesus as their lord?

(By the way, for you science fans, I'm not arguing that Neanderthal's demise was due to mutations, but I would like to hear about extinct human-like species, and how creationist believers deal with THAT evidence.)

To be honest, creationist are divided on the neanderthals. They have many theories, and i just don't see any that i can say i agree with. Both sides do agree they were human. Some believe they interbred with humans, and some believe they were a separate tribe that came out of babylon. They were nomadic and migrated down to Africa, and eventually died out from disease,genetic disorders, and competing for food with other healthier humans.

But that kind of speculation i try to avoid. I do have my theories on this though that i will share but no way to back them up.

The bible say's that after cain killed able he was banished to the land of Nod.That is where cain took a wife and produced offspring. But that is the only mention of the land of Nod and cain.But evidently there were people in the land of Nod but the bible didn't go in to detail about who or where they came from.

This is where speculation is needed. Could the neanderthals be descendants of cain ? Or could the neanderthals be the people of Nod ? The bible just did not go in to details. But i think they were the people of Nod that only cain had offspring with. I believed they died out in the global flood.Maybe God created them to cross with the descendants of Adam, after adams sin. But they were never mentioned again.

My other theory is they were a group of humans that inbred to the point that mutations completely wiped them out. What time frame have no clue, i was not there.

My vote for most psychotic thing stated on USMB this month.

 

[cbirch2]

If a gene pool gets to small it most certainly can happen. I don't think you realize how damaging mutations can be.

I dont think you realize anything your talking about? I think i understand pretty well how damaging mutations can be. Mutations dont make gene pools smaller. Doesnt happen.

I already posted the evidence that it does, btw. Many pages ago. A couple of noted genetecists saying exactly that.

So please explain, in your own words, how variation within one organism causes less variation within the entire population. Please, post in your own words and provide the link to the source.

If your talking about purebred organisms thats something totally different. Thats selective breeding by humans.

 

[cbirch2]

If a gene pool gets to small it most certainly can happen. I don't think you realize how damaging mutations can be.

I dont think you realize anything your talking about? I think i understand pretty well how damaging mutations can be. Mutations dont make gene pools smaller. Doesnt happen.

Then explain how you have purebred animals ? How come a person knows when they breed two of the same breed what you will get for offspring ? If the gene pool does not get smaller you would only have muts. Now that we know all the information contained in the chromosomes is being used where do you say this new information comes from ?


Look we can get new information but it's from the loss or rerarranging of the information. If we get enough beneficial information you can get change. And we believe there are beneficial mutations but not near enough. Since beneficial mutations are so rare it can't produce what evolutionist claim.

Besides this part of the conversation is pointless, because we don't agree on this issue so i will move back and show you again why it's not possible.

Purebred animals are the result of selective breeding by humans!! It has nothing to do with evolution. Humans prevent natural intermixing of traits to preserve the ones they want.

"In the world of animal breeding, to "breed true" means that specimens of an animal breed will breed true-to-type when mated like-to-like" -- Purebred - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Its just people making sure they mate a homozygous animal with another homozygous animal. If you do that yes your going to make a gene pool smaller over many generations. But its not getting smaller due to mutation, that has nothing at all to do with mutation. Not only that but its totally unnatural. Nowhere in nature would a homozygous animal breed exclusively with other homozygous animals. Animals breed freely, and traits are exchanged fairly randomly.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Cbirch.

Mutations are certainly real. They have profound effects on our lives. And, according to the neo-Darwinian evolutionists, mutations are the raw material for evolution.

But is that possible? Can mutations produce real evolutionary changes? Don’t make any mistakes here. Mutations are real; they’re something we observe; they do make changes in traits. But the question remains: do they produce evolutionary changes? Do they really produce new traits? Do they really help to explain that postulated change from molecules to man, or fish to philosopher?

The answer seems to be: “Mutations, yes. Evolution, no.” In the last analysis, mutations really don’t help evolutionary theory at all. There are three major problems or limits (and many minor ones) that prevent scientific extrapolation from mutational change to evolutionary change.

(1) Mathematical challenges. Problem number one is the mathematical. I won’t dwell on this one, because it’s written up in many books and widely acknowledged by evolutionists themselves as a serious problem for their theory.

Fortunately, mutations are very rare. They occur on an average of perhaps once in every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule (107, a one followed by seven zeroes). That’s fairly rare. On the other hand, it’s not that rare. Our bodies contain nearly 100 trillion cells (1014). So the odds are quite good that we have a couple of cells with a mutated form of almost any gene. A test tube can hold millions of bacteria, so, again, the odds are quite good that there will be mutant forms among them.

The mathematical problem for evolution comes when you want a series of related mutations. The odds of getting two mutations that are related to one another is the product of the separate probabilities: one in 107 x 107, or 1014. That’s a one followed by 14 zeroes, a hundred trillion! Any two mutations might produce no more than a fly with a wavy edge on a bent wing. That’s a long way from producing a truly new structure, and certainly a long way from changing a fly into some new kind of organism. You need more mutations for that. So, what are the odds of getting three mutations in a row? That’s one in a billion trillion (1021). Suddenly, the ocean isn’t big enough to hold enough bacteria to make it likely for you to find a bacterium with three simultaneous or sequential related mutations.

What about trying for four related mutations? One in 1028. Suddenly, the earth isn’t big enough to hold enough organisms to make that very likely. And we’re talking about only four mutations. It would take many more than that to change a fish into a philosopher, or even a fish into a frog. Four mutations don’t even make a start toward any real evolution. But already at this point some evolutionists have given up the classic idea of evolution, because it just plainly doesn’t work.

It was at this level (just four related mutations) that microbiologists gave up on the idea that mutations could explain why some bacteria are resistant to four different antibiotics at the same time. The odds against the mutation explanation were simply too great, so they began to look for another mechanism—and they found it. First of all, using cultures that are routinely kept for long periods of time, they found out that bacteria were resistant to antibiotics, even before commercial antibiotics were “invented.” Genetic variability was “built right into” the bacteria. Did the nonresistant varieties get resistant by mutation? No. Resistant forms were already present. Furthermore, certain bacteria have little rings of DNA, called plasmids, that they trade around among themselves, and they passed on their resistance to antibiotics in that way. It wasn’t mutation and asexual reproduction at all, just ordinary recombination and variation within kind.

Mutations

There are several problems with this.

First, your using an extremely simple arithmetic calculation to determine how fast evolution is going to happen. Its misleading and you know it. It doesnt take into account which size the mutation is, is it the size of a single base or a whole chromosome. Your not addressing multiple generations at all, which for bacteria can take less than a day. You dont mention gene flow or any type of complicated natural selection at all.

Second, you mutation numbers come from Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics. So id probably like a number from a legitimate source if im expected to take it seriously. Mutations occur "once in every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule"? No. They can occur many times in a single duplication.

Third, what do you mean related mutation? That is a useless term. Small changes in sequences of genes or bases cause a variation in the expression of a certain protein. A single mutated base causes it to code for a different animo acid and therefore a new protein. The slightly different protein has slightly different function. Life is all about the expression of proteins, as is evolution. Therefore simple changes in DNA can cause slightly varied physical traits. Like how expression of the protein BMP4 played a role in the development of darwin's finches' beaks.

Fourth, it seems like you greatly underestimate the total amount of bacteria in a population, and how fast bacteria reproduce. Bacteria reproduce once a day, even faster. The total amount of bacterial life on earth is estimated to be 5 million trillion trillion (First-Ever Scientific Estimate Of Total Bacteria On Earth Shows Far Greater Numbers Than Ever Known Before), so your argument that mutations couldnt occur fast enough is totally wrong. Those mutations could occur in a population of bacteria in a day. So it doesnt even matter that your entire premise of "related mutations" makes no sense.

Five, you dont take into account sexual reproduction at all. Sexual reproduction greatly increases the number of mutations in a single organism. Your numbers more likely model a single cell reproducing asexually over generations, they dont take into account sexual reproduction or anything but the simplest type of mutation. In a culture of asexual bacteria your number were wrong; in a population of sexual organisms your numbers are totally meaningless.


Super not impressed. I threw numbers at you before about the human genome but you seemed to brush that off as meaningless garbage. The human genome has 3 billion base pairs. Which, in terms of raw information, means that if one beneficial mutation spread throughout a population in a year it would only take about 3 billion years to go from a single bacteria to the human genome you deem so "information-rich", whatever that means.

You can't understand related mutations ? Cumulative selection is a better way to say related mutation. It does not take complicated math when you have the accUrate numbers. The numbers came from Encode the Genome research PROJECT . How did you not understand this ? not from AIG.

That is your problem you deny all evidence that contradicts your theory. These numbers and figures have been ran on your side as well. Why did evolutionists need more time to show evolution can happen ? I will tell you why because they new the mutation rate that occurs naturally is pretty slow considering how many mutations are needed.You have to have many beneficial mutations in a row to get any change at all let alone enough beneficial mutations to bring about Macro-evolution. Harmful and neutral mutations greatly outnumber beneficial mutations so that is why it's impossibility.

Did you ignore Dr.Spetners problems for Neo ? That is a summary of what you read a week ago and came up with some rediculous rebuttal. Those are facts that Dr. Spetner presented and that is why your side is desperately trying to show NEW information comes in just a few mutations knowing all along information is being lost. Knowing this that is disengenuous of people on your side of the debate.

Here prove the good doc WRONG and show he does not know what he is talking about. Dr. Miller couldn't do it.

Dr. Spetner - Major Points against Neo.

1. Adaptive mutations are stimulated by the environment. This is a contradiction of the basic tenants of evolution.
2. Animal embryos develop according to a dual process involving the influence of their genetic program and their environment.
3. Cumulative selection has never been demonstrated, whereby a series of positive mutations, each of which must survive, will lead to a new organism
4. Low mutation rates are a problem for evolution due to a proofreading process that corrects most of the errors in transcription.
5. Information must be added incrementally. New information cannot be accounted for. Losses of information can be accounted for during mutations.



This is a quote taken from a site on your side.

QUOTE "Last spring I wrote about a study that used whole-genome comparisons between parents and offspring to estimate the rate of per-genome mutation in humans ("A low human mutation rate may throw everything out of whack").

The study was by Jared Roach and colleagues [1], and as you might guess from my post title, the result was surprising. Previous work had suggested a human mutation rate around 2.5 x 10-8 per site per generation. The new study found less than half the expected number of mutations between these parents and offspring, an estimated rate of only 1.1 x 10-8 per site ".

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/genomics/variation/human-mutation-rate-review-2010.html

 

[Youwerecreated]

Question to Creationist adherents here:

Did Neanderthal mankind live? If so, when? Where? How long ago did Neanderthal die out? How long was Neanderthal on this planet? Did Neanderthal man die of mutations? Or was there another reason?

Do Creationists have a way of acknowledging and explaining Neanderthal man?

More generally, if a speicies of plant or animal dies out because of "mutations", how is that part of a creator's plan? Isn't a creator supposed to be creating perfect living things? Did Neanderthal man fall from grace for not accepting Jesus as their lord?

(By the way, for you science fans, I'm not arguing that Neanderthal's demise was due to mutations, but I would like to hear about extinct human-like species, and how creationist believers deal with THAT evidence.)

To be honest, creationist are divided on the neanderthals. They have many theories, and i just don't see any that i can say i agree with. Both sides do agree they were human. Some believe they interbred with humans, and some believe they were a separate tribe that came out of babylon. They were nomadic and migrated down to Africa, and eventually died out from disease,genetic disorders, and competing for food with other healthier humans.

But that kind of speculation i try to avoid. I do have my theories on this though that i will share but no way to back them up.

The bible say's that after cain killed able he was banished to the land of Nod.That is where cain took a wife and produced offspring. But that is the only mention of the land of Nod and cain.But evidently there were people in the land of Nod but the bible didn't go in to detail about who or where they came from.

This is where speculation is needed. Could the neanderthals be descendants of cain ? Or could the neanderthals be the people of Nod ? The bible just did not go in to details. But i think they were the people of Nod that only cain had offspring with. I believed they died out in the global flood.Maybe God created them to cross with the descendants of Adam, after adams sin. But they were never mentioned again.

My other theory is they were a group of humans that inbred to the point that mutations completely wiped them out. What time frame have no clue, i was not there.

My vote for most psychotic thing stated on USMB this month.

Hey now it was no different from what your side does,they do it ALOT.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I dont think you realize anything your talking about? I think i understand pretty well how damaging mutations can be. Mutations dont make gene pools smaller. Doesnt happen.

I already posted the evidence that it does, btw. Many pages ago. A couple of noted genetecists saying exactly that.

So please explain, in your own words, how variation within one organism causes less variation within the entire population. Please, post in your own words and provide the link to the source.

If your talking about purebred organisms thats something totally different. Thats selective breeding by humans.

Why does she have to play your silly word games genius ? wow selective breeding was used to produce lions and tigers

 

[Youwerecreated]

I dont think you realize anything your talking about? I think i understand pretty well how damaging mutations can be. Mutations dont make gene pools smaller. Doesnt happen.

Then explain how you have purebred animals ? How come a person knows when they breed two of the same breed what you will get for offspring ? If the gene pool does not get smaller you would only have muts. Now that we know all the information contained in the chromosomes is being used where do you say this new information comes from ?


Look we can get new information but it's from the loss or rerarranging of the information. If we get enough beneficial information you can get change. And we believe there are beneficial mutations but not near enough. Since beneficial mutations are so rare it can't produce what evolutionist claim.

Besides this part of the conversation is pointless, because we don't agree on this issue so i will move back and show you again why it's not possible.

Purebred animals are the result of selective breeding by humans!! It has nothing to do with evolution. Humans prevent natural intermixing of traits to preserve the ones they want.

"In the world of animal breeding, to "breed true" means that specimens of an animal breed will breed true-to-type when mated like-to-like" -- Purebred - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Its just people making sure they mate a homozygous animal with another homozygous animal. If you do that yes your going to make a gene pool smaller over many generations. But its not getting smaller due to mutation, that has nothing at all to do with mutation. Not only that but its totally unnatural. Nowhere in nature would a homozygous animal breed exclusively with other homozygous animals. Animals breed freely, and traits are exchanged fairly randomly.

Give it a rest genius. You got your nickname back.

 

[cbirch2]

Cbirch.

Mutations are certainly real. They have profound effects on our lives. And, according to the neo-Darwinian evolutionists, mutations are the raw material for evolution.

But is that possible? Can mutations produce real evolutionary changes? Don’t make any mistakes here. Mutations are real; they’re something we observe; they do make changes in traits. But the question remains: do they produce evolutionary changes? Do they really produce new traits? Do they really help to explain that postulated change from molecules to man, or fish to philosopher?

The answer seems to be: “Mutations, yes. Evolution, no.” In the last analysis, mutations really don’t help evolutionary theory at all. There are three major problems or limits (and many minor ones) that prevent scientific extrapolation from mutational change to evolutionary change.

(1) Mathematical challenges. Problem number one is the mathematical. I won’t dwell on this one, because it’s written up in many books and widely acknowledged by evolutionists themselves as a serious problem for their theory.

Fortunately, mutations are very rare. They occur on an average of perhaps once in every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule (107, a one followed by seven zeroes). That’s fairly rare. On the other hand, it’s not that rare. Our bodies contain nearly 100 trillion cells (1014). So the odds are quite good that we have a couple of cells with a mutated form of almost any gene. A test tube can hold millions of bacteria, so, again, the odds are quite good that there will be mutant forms among them.

The mathematical problem for evolution comes when you want a series of related mutations. The odds of getting two mutations that are related to one another is the product of the separate probabilities: one in 107 x 107, or 1014. That’s a one followed by 14 zeroes, a hundred trillion! Any two mutations might produce no more than a fly with a wavy edge on a bent wing. That’s a long way from producing a truly new structure, and certainly a long way from changing a fly into some new kind of organism. You need more mutations for that. So, what are the odds of getting three mutations in a row? That’s one in a billion trillion (1021). Suddenly, the ocean isn’t big enough to hold enough bacteria to make it likely for you to find a bacterium with three simultaneous or sequential related mutations.

What about trying for four related mutations? One in 1028. Suddenly, the earth isn’t big enough to hold enough organisms to make that very likely. And we’re talking about only four mutations. It would take many more than that to change a fish into a philosopher, or even a fish into a frog. Four mutations don’t even make a start toward any real evolution. But already at this point some evolutionists have given up the classic idea of evolution, because it just plainly doesn’t work.

It was at this level (just four related mutations) that microbiologists gave up on the idea that mutations could explain why some bacteria are resistant to four different antibiotics at the same time. The odds against the mutation explanation were simply too great, so they began to look for another mechanism—and they found it. First of all, using cultures that are routinely kept for long periods of time, they found out that bacteria were resistant to antibiotics, even before commercial antibiotics were “invented.” Genetic variability was “built right into” the bacteria. Did the nonresistant varieties get resistant by mutation? No. Resistant forms were already present. Furthermore, certain bacteria have little rings of DNA, called plasmids, that they trade around among themselves, and they passed on their resistance to antibiotics in that way. It wasn’t mutation and asexual reproduction at all, just ordinary recombination and variation within kind.

Mutations

There are several problems with this.

First, your using an extremely simple arithmetic calculation to determine how fast evolution is going to happen. Its misleading and you know it. It doesnt take into account which size the mutation is, is it the size of a single base or a whole chromosome. Your not addressing multiple generations at all, which for bacteria can take less than a day. You dont mention gene flow or any type of complicated natural selection at all.

Second, you mutation numbers come from Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics. So id probably like a number from a legitimate source if im expected to take it seriously. Mutations occur "once in every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule"? No. They can occur many times in a single duplication.

Third, what do you mean related mutation? That is a useless term. Small changes in sequences of genes or bases cause a variation in the expression of a certain protein. A single mutated base causes it to code for a different animo acid and therefore a new protein. The slightly different protein has slightly different function. Life is all about the expression of proteins, as is evolution. Therefore simple changes in DNA can cause slightly varied physical traits. Like how expression of the protein BMP4 played a role in the development of darwin's finches' beaks.

Fourth, it seems like you greatly underestimate the total amount of bacteria in a population, and how fast bacteria reproduce. Bacteria reproduce once a day, even faster. The total amount of bacterial life on earth is estimated to be 5 million trillion trillion (First-Ever Scientific Estimate Of Total Bacteria On Earth Shows Far Greater Numbers Than Ever Known Before), so your argument that mutations couldnt occur fast enough is totally wrong. Those mutations could occur in a population of bacteria in a day. So it doesnt even matter that your entire premise of "related mutations" makes no sense.

Five, you dont take into account sexual reproduction at all. Sexual reproduction greatly increases the number of mutations in a single organism. Your numbers more likely model a single cell reproducing asexually over generations, they dont take into account sexual reproduction or anything but the simplest type of mutation. In a culture of asexual bacteria your number were wrong; in a population of sexual organisms your numbers are totally meaningless.


Super not impressed. I threw numbers at you before about the human genome but you seemed to brush that off as meaningless garbage. The human genome has 3 billion base pairs. Which, in terms of raw information, means that if one beneficial mutation spread throughout a population in a year it would only take about 3 billion years to go from a single bacteria to the human genome you deem so "information-rich", whatever that means.

You can't understand related mutations ? Cumulative selection is a better way to say related mutation. It does not take complicated math when you have the accUrate numbers. The numbers came from Encode the Genome research PROJECT . How did you not understand this ? not from AIG.

That is your problem you deny all evidence that contradicts your theory. These numbers and figures have been ran on your side as well. Why did evolutionists need more time to show evolution can happen ? I will tell you why because they new the mutation rate that occurs naturally is pretty slow considering how many mutations are needed.You have to have many beneficial mutations in a row to get any change at all let alone enough beneficial mutations to bring about Macro-evolution. Harmful and neutral mutations greatly outnumber beneficial mutations so that is why it's impossibility.

Did you ignore Dr.Spetners problems for Neo ? That is a summary of what you read a week ago and came up with some rediculous rebuttal. Those are facts that Dr. Spetner presented and that is why your side is desperately trying to show NEW information comes in just a few mutations knowing all along information is being lost. Knowing this that is disengenuous of people on your side of the debate.

Here prove the good doc WRONG and show he does not know what he is talking about. Dr. Miller couldn't do it.

Dr. Spetner - Major Points against Neo.

1. Adaptive mutations are stimulated by the environment. This is a contradiction of the basic tenants of evolution.
2. Animal embryos develop according to a dual process involving the influence of their genetic program and their environment.
3. Cumulative selection has never been demonstrated, whereby a series of positive mutations, each of which must survive, will lead to a new organism
4. Low mutation rates are a problem for evolution due to a proofreading process that corrects most of the errors in transcription.
5. Information must be added incrementally. New information cannot be accounted for. Losses of information can be accounted for during mutations.



This is a quote taken from a site on your side.

QUOTE "Last spring I wrote about a study that used whole-genome comparisons between parents and offspring to estimate the rate of per-genome mutation in humans ("A low human mutation rate may throw everything out of whack").

The study was by Jared Roach and colleagues [1], and as you might guess from my post title, the result was surprising. Previous work had suggested a human mutation rate around 2.5 x 10-8 per site per generation. The new study found less than half the expected number of mutations between these parents and offspring, an estimated rate of only 1.1 x 10-8 per site ".

What is the human mutation rate? | john hawks weblog

1. Mutations are not stimulated by the environment. Thats wrong. Mutations are random. The environment determines which mutations lead to increase reproductive capacity, but it does not create the genes themselves.
2. Animals develop almost entirely due to genetics. After a person is born the environment may shape their personality, but in terms of how an embryos body develops its almost all genetic. This point is useless anyways.
3. Wrong and misleading. Evolution doesnt claim speciation would happen within such a short time frame. We see cumulative adaptations all the time. What is there to possibly stop several mutations from happening?
4. Your mutation rates are wrong and irrelevant. For one, your talking about transcription which is the expression of genes not the duplication of DNA. Second, errors in the replication process happen all the time. They can be any size. Your entire argument hinges on each mutation being a single base when it could be an entire gene or segment of DNA. Not that you understood what that meant.
5. You keep saying this but its false! Information can easily be added to DNA! Genes can be duplicated leading to increased protein expression. Single bases can be added making a different protein. Entire segments of DNA can be added to a genome. Virus's can mutate our DNA. Remember the cancer cell on the last page? Thats how much information can be added extremely easily.

What your point? You seem to have two arguments.

One is that information cannot be added to an organisms genome, which is just blatantly false.

The other is that mutations cannot happen fast enough. It sounds nice when you use big numbers but its wrong. Your simplifying the entire process down to an arithmetic calculation so easy a grade schooler could do it.

 

[cbirch2]

I already posted the evidence that it does, btw. Many pages ago. A couple of noted genetecists saying exactly that.

So please explain, in your own words, how variation within one organism causes less variation within the entire population. Please, post in your own words and provide the link to the source.

If your talking about purebred organisms thats something totally different. Thats selective breeding by humans.

Why does she have to play your silly word games genius ? wow selective breeding was used to produce lions and tigers

Again. Apparently using words you dont understand is a silly little word game. Your so smart.

Again purebred organisms are a result of selective breeding by humans. Idc if you dont know what that means. Like i said before, that doesnt mean im playing games it means your stupid.

We controlled which organisms bred together to give us certain traits we like. If you started breeding a pure breed with other breeds it wouldnt be a purebred anymore. Purebreeds are not a natural phenomena. We understand the genetics behind it. They are just homozygous for one trait, and in order to insure the offspring are homozygous as well we mate them with an animal homozygous for the same trait. I dont get how you dont understand this.

Purebred animals are not an example of natural selection or evolution. They are an example of artificial selection. How dont you get that? I hope these words arent too big for you.

 

[Youwerecreated]

There are several problems with this.

First, your using an extremely simple arithmetic calculation to determine how fast evolution is going to happen. Its misleading and you know it. It doesnt take into account which size the mutation is, is it the size of a single base or a whole chromosome. Your not addressing multiple generations at all, which for bacteria can take less than a day. You dont mention gene flow or any type of complicated natural selection at all.

Second, you mutation numbers come from Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics. So id probably like a number from a legitimate source if im expected to take it seriously. Mutations occur "once in every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule"? No. They can occur many times in a single duplication.

Third, what do you mean related mutation? That is a useless term. Small changes in sequences of genes or bases cause a variation in the expression of a certain protein. A single mutated base causes it to code for a different animo acid and therefore a new protein. The slightly different protein has slightly different function. Life is all about the expression of proteins, as is evolution. Therefore simple changes in DNA can cause slightly varied physical traits. Like how expression of the protein BMP4 played a role in the development of darwin's finches' beaks.

Fourth, it seems like you greatly underestimate the total amount of bacteria in a population, and how fast bacteria reproduce. Bacteria reproduce once a day, even faster. The total amount of bacterial life on earth is estimated to be 5 million trillion trillion (First-Ever Scientific Estimate Of Total Bacteria On Earth Shows Far Greater Numbers Than Ever Known Before), so your argument that mutations couldnt occur fast enough is totally wrong. Those mutations could occur in a population of bacteria in a day. So it doesnt even matter that your entire premise of "related mutations" makes no sense.

Five, you dont take into account sexual reproduction at all. Sexual reproduction greatly increases the number of mutations in a single organism. Your numbers more likely model a single cell reproducing asexually over generations, they dont take into account sexual reproduction or anything but the simplest type of mutation. In a culture of asexual bacteria your number were wrong; in a population of sexual organisms your numbers are totally meaningless.


Super not impressed. I threw numbers at you before about the human genome but you seemed to brush that off as meaningless garbage. The human genome has 3 billion base pairs. Which, in terms of raw information, means that if one beneficial mutation spread throughout a population in a year it would only take about 3 billion years to go from a single bacteria to the human genome you deem so "information-rich", whatever that means.

You can't understand related mutations ? Cumulative selection is a better way to say related mutation. It does not take complicated math when you have the accUrate numbers. The numbers came from Encode the Genome research PROJECT . How did you not understand this ? not from AIG.

That is your problem you deny all evidence that contradicts your theory. These numbers and figures have been ran on your side as well. Why did evolutionists need more time to show evolution can happen ? I will tell you why because they new the mutation rate that occurs naturally is pretty slow considering how many mutations are needed.You have to have many beneficial mutations in a row to get any change at all let alone enough beneficial mutations to bring about Macro-evolution. Harmful and neutral mutations greatly outnumber beneficial mutations so that is why it's impossibility.

Did you ignore Dr.Spetners problems for Neo ? That is a summary of what you read a week ago and came up with some rediculous rebuttal. Those are facts that Dr. Spetner presented and that is why your side is desperately trying to show NEW information comes in just a few mutations knowing all along information is being lost. Knowing this that is disengenuous of people on your side of the debate.

Here prove the good doc WRONG and show he does not know what he is talking about. Dr. Miller couldn't do it.

Dr. Spetner - Major Points against Neo.

1. Adaptive mutations are stimulated by the environment. This is a contradiction of the basic tenants of evolution.
2. Animal embryos develop according to a dual process involving the influence of their genetic program and their environment.
3. Cumulative selection has never been demonstrated, whereby a series of positive mutations, each of which must survive, will lead to a new organism
4. Low mutation rates are a problem for evolution due to a proofreading process that corrects most of the errors in transcription.
5. Information must be added incrementally. New information cannot be accounted for. Losses of information can be accounted for during mutations.



This is a quote taken from a site on your side.

QUOTE "Last spring I wrote about a study that used whole-genome comparisons between parents and offspring to estimate the rate of per-genome mutation in humans ("A low human mutation rate may throw everything out of whack").

The study was by Jared Roach and colleagues [1], and as you might guess from my post title, the result was surprising. Previous work had suggested a human mutation rate around 2.5 x 10-8 per site per generation. The new study found less than half the expected number of mutations between these parents and offspring, an estimated rate of only 1.1 x 10-8 per site ".

What is the human mutation rate? | john hawks weblog

1. Mutations are not stimulated by the environment. Thats wrong. Mutations are random. The environment determines which mutations lead to increase reproductive capacity, but it does not create the genes themselves.
2. Animals develop almost entirely due to genetics. After a person is born the environment may shape their personality, but in terms of how an embryos body develops its almost all genetic. This point is useless anyways.
3. Wrong and misleading. Evolution doesnt claim speciation would happen within such a short time frame. We see cumulative adaptations all the time. What is there to possibly stop several mutations from happening?
4. Your mutation rates are wrong and irrelevant. For one, your talking about transcription which is the expression of genes not the duplication of DNA. Second, errors in the replication process happen all the time. They can be any size. Your entire argument hinges on each mutation being a single base when it could be an entire gene or segment of DNA. Not that you understood what that meant.
5. You keep saying this but its false! Information can easily be added to DNA! Genes can be duplicated leading to increased protein expression. Single bases can be added making a different protein. Entire segments of DNA can be added to a genome. Virus's can mutate our DNA. Remember the cancer cell on the last page? Thats how much information can be added extremely easily.

What your point? You seem to have two arguments.

One is that information cannot be added to an organisms genome, which is just blatantly false.

The other is that mutations cannot happen fast enough. It sounds nice when you use big numbers but its wrong. Your simplifying the entire process down to an arithmetic calculation so easy a grade schooler could do it.

Do you understand what adapting means ? these mutations can't be random chance are you serious ?

Darwins finches, what caused them to adapt or to exp Micro-evolution ?

Now i want you to see the effect of mutations.

I will start with (are you friggen kidding)

This is the results of one random mutation then i will do 2 mutatations then 5 then 10


1 Are you friggen kiddinR

2 are you f6igZen kidding

5 arP y3u fjigge8 kidfing

10 arE9soI frIgBen kfdFing

Binary mutations

1 are you frjggen kidding

2 are yoy frigge. kidding

5 ard you frikWen$kiddinW

10 ire yv nriggen kudjYmg

Are you beginning to get the picture ?

The rest you're trying to prove your point through theory again. provide actual evidence not how your theory works. Do you understand actual evidence verses what you read from a book ?

I didn't say information could not be added what me and the good Dr. are saying is the whole time information is being added information is being lost. That information lost is detrimental to neo.

Don't flatter yourself, i will take my lifes exeriences and many Docters that agree with me over a college student.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So please explain, in your own words, how variation within one organism causes less variation within the entire population. Please, post in your own words and provide the link to the source.

If your talking about purebred organisms thats something totally different. Thats selective breeding by humans.

Why does she have to play your silly word games genius ? wow selective breeding was used to produce lions and tigers

Again. Apparently using words you dont understand is a silly little word game. Your so smart.

Again purebred organisms are a result of selective breeding by humans. Idc if you dont know what that means. Like i said before, that doesnt mean im playing games it means your stupid.

We controlled which organisms bred together to give us certain traits we like. If you started breeding a pure breed with other breeds it wouldnt be a purebred anymore. Purebreeds are not a natural phenomena. We understand the genetics behind it. They are just homozygous for one trait, and in order to insure the offspring are homozygous as well we mate them with an animal homozygous for the same trait. I dont get how you dont understand this.

Purebred animals are not an example of natural selection or evolution. They are an example of artificial selection. How dont you get that? I hope these words arent too big for you.

Oh boy do you see how you try to spin ? your word games are making you look foolish.

Yes dogs will breed with any dogs that is why if we didn't control their breeding we would have nothing but mutts, with an extremely large gene pool. In the wild most animals keep to themselves that is why your theory is rediculous and this reasoning supports my theory the one you called rediculous.

I don't need to use your terms to explain what i mean. I am sure people reading this thread do understand what i am saying.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Those random mutations i posted up i better explain that to you. Do you see how destructive they were to my short question ?Random mutations were no help to my question.

That is how information gets lost or replaced now if that really happened we would all go extinct.

Can you imagine what would happen if information was lost for the heart,kidneys,or brain ?

That is why you should be thankful that God's way of order limits us from too much change,because we would not be here if it happened the way evolutionist claim.

 

[Youwerecreated]

By the way i will take the pressure off of you.

The finches were adapting to their enviornment,their enviornment caused the adaptation to take place proving Dr. Spetner right and you wrong .They would have continued dying out if they did not adapt to their enviornment. That is where the long beak finche came in and flourished. Now answer me when the drought was over why did the short beak finche make a come back ?

 

[cbirch2]

You can't understand related mutations ? Cumulative selection is a better way to say related mutation. It does not take complicated math when you have the accUrate numbers. The numbers came from Encode the Genome research PROJECT . How did you not understand this ? not from AIG.

That is your problem you deny all evidence that contradicts your theory. These numbers and figures have been ran on your side as well. Why did evolutionists need more time to show evolution can happen ? I will tell you why because they new the mutation rate that occurs naturally is pretty slow considering how many mutations are needed.You have to have many beneficial mutations in a row to get any change at all let alone enough beneficial mutations to bring about Macro-evolution. Harmful and neutral mutations greatly outnumber beneficial mutations so that is why it's impossibility.

Did you ignore Dr.Spetners problems for Neo ? That is a summary of what you read a week ago and came up with some rediculous rebuttal. Those are facts that Dr. Spetner presented and that is why your side is desperately trying to show NEW information comes in just a few mutations knowing all along information is being lost. Knowing this that is disengenuous of people on your side of the debate.

Here prove the good doc WRONG and show he does not know what he is talking about. Dr. Miller couldn't do it.

Dr. Spetner - Major Points against Neo.

1. Adaptive mutations are stimulated by the environment. This is a contradiction of the basic tenants of evolution.
2. Animal embryos develop according to a dual process involving the influence of their genetic program and their environment.
3. Cumulative selection has never been demonstrated, whereby a series of positive mutations, each of which must survive, will lead to a new organism
4. Low mutation rates are a problem for evolution due to a proofreading process that corrects most of the errors in transcription.
5. Information must be added incrementally. New information cannot be accounted for. Losses of information can be accounted for during mutations.



This is a quote taken from a site on your side.

QUOTE "Last spring I wrote about a study that used whole-genome comparisons between parents and offspring to estimate the rate of per-genome mutation in humans ("A low human mutation rate may throw everything out of whack").

The study was by Jared Roach and colleagues [1], and as you might guess from my post title, the result was surprising. Previous work had suggested a human mutation rate around 2.5 x 10-8 per site per generation. The new study found less than half the expected number of mutations between these parents and offspring, an estimated rate of only 1.1 x 10-8 per site ".

What is the human mutation rate? | john hawks weblog

1. Mutations are not stimulated by the environment. Thats wrong. Mutations are random. The environment determines which mutations lead to increase reproductive capacity, but it does not create the genes themselves.
2. Animals develop almost entirely due to genetics. After a person is born the environment may shape their personality, but in terms of how an embryos body develops its almost all genetic. This point is useless anyways.
3. Wrong and misleading. Evolution doesnt claim speciation would happen within such a short time frame. We see cumulative adaptations all the time. What is there to possibly stop several mutations from happening?
4. Your mutation rates are wrong and irrelevant. For one, your talking about transcription which is the expression of genes not the duplication of DNA. Second, errors in the replication process happen all the time. They can be any size. Your entire argument hinges on each mutation being a single base when it could be an entire gene or segment of DNA. Not that you understood what that meant.
5. You keep saying this but its false! Information can easily be added to DNA! Genes can be duplicated leading to increased protein expression. Single bases can be added making a different protein. Entire segments of DNA can be added to a genome. Virus's can mutate our DNA. Remember the cancer cell on the last page? Thats how much information can be added extremely easily.

What your point? You seem to have two arguments.

One is that information cannot be added to an organisms genome, which is just blatantly false.

The other is that mutations cannot happen fast enough. It sounds nice when you use big numbers but its wrong. Your simplifying the entire process down to an arithmetic calculation so easy a grade schooler could do it.

Do you understand what adapting means ? these mutations can't be random chance are you serious ?

Darwins finches, what caused them to adapt or to exp Micro-evolution ?

Now i want you to see the effect of mutations.

I will start with (are you friggen kidding)

This is the results of one random mutation then i will do 2 mutatations then 5 then 10


1 Are you friggen kiddinR

2 are you f6igZen kidding

5 arP y3u fjigge8 kidfing

10 arE9soI frIgBen kfdFing

Binary mutations

1 are you frjggen kidding

2 are yoy frigge. kidding

5 ard you frikWen$kiddinW

10 ire yv nriggen kudjYmg

Are you beginning to get the picture ?

The rest you're trying to prove your point through theory again. provide actual evidence not how your theory works. Do you understand actual evidence verses what you read from a book ?

I didn't say information could not be added what me and the good Dr. are saying is the whole time information is being added information is being lost. That information lost is detrimental to neo.

Don't flatter yourself, i will take my lifes exeriences and many Docters that agree with me over a college student.

So now i know for sure you dont even know how natural selection works. I was saying this a while back but you didnt seem to get it. Lol how many doctors do you think agree with me versus you? I guarantee you that the vast majority of degree holding professionals believe in evolution. Especially doctors.

But back to how you dont understand natural selection. The environment does not control the mutation, thats why you dont get. Nothing in the environment actually does the mutating of the genetic material, in terms of natural selection. The environment can induce mutations, but that isnt the type of mutation that natural selection deals with and those mutations generally arent passed on (they arent mutated sperm or egg cells). In natural selection the mutations or variations are random, due to a whole range of phenomena.

Natural selection is how those random mutations influence the organisms competitive advantage. Its about how likely those mutations are to be passed on. The mutations in darwins finches were random. Some mutations allowed for slightly different expressions of the protein BMP4, which plays a major role in skeletal development in the embryo. The mutation any single finch may get is random, so each bird that has a mutation in the expression of BMP4 may have a slightly different shaped beak. The ones with beaks that allow them advantages, like being pointed enough to dig further into trees, allowed them to survive better. They consume more resources, it becomes harder for those without that mutation to survive, and therefore the entire population has evolved.

 

[cbirch2]

Why does she have to play your silly word games genius ? wow selective breeding was used to produce lions and tigers

Again. Apparently using words you dont understand is a silly little word game. Your so smart.

Again purebred organisms are a result of selective breeding by humans. Idc if you dont know what that means. Like i said before, that doesnt mean im playing games it means your stupid.

We controlled which organisms bred together to give us certain traits we like. If you started breeding a pure breed with other breeds it wouldnt be a purebred anymore. Purebreeds are not a natural phenomena. We understand the genetics behind it. They are just homozygous for one trait, and in order to insure the offspring are homozygous as well we mate them with an animal homozygous for the same trait. I dont get how you dont understand this.

Purebred animals are not an example of natural selection or evolution. They are an example of artificial selection. How dont you get that? I hope these words arent too big for you.

Oh boy do you see how you try to spin ? your word games are making you look foolish.

Yes dogs will breed with any dogs that is why if we didn't control their breeding we would have nothing but mutts, with an extremely large gene pool. In the wild most animals keep to themselves that is why your theory is rediculous and this reasoning supports my theory the one you called rediculous.

I don't need to use your terms to explain what i mean. I am sure people reading this thread do understand what i am saying.

Most animals keep to themselves? Thats ridiculous. Your right, my theory hinges on the exact opposite of that. Because in nature no lineage of animals over several generations is a purebred. Are you saying that a purebred in the wild would consciously choose to mate with a purebred rather than another dog? Because thats simply false.