Why do the anti God crowd attack the bible ?

[cbirch2]

No because we always have crossbreeding we call them muts or heinz 57 .Strays breed with whatever changing the gene pool.

What happens if a white person and let's say a black person produce offspring ?

It that continued on from generation to generation you will produce a different looking human.

Your grammar isnt good enough for me to quite get what ur saying. If you mean a white person and a black person mating make a unique person than yea...I know...thats natural selection....and by extension evolution. Thats what ive been saying the whole time...

You still have yet to prove anything about information loss. Humans have 46 chromosomes. An egg has 23 and a sperm has 23, they combine to make a person. What are you talking about?

Now you're are seeing how genetics work. don't insult me because you can't grasp real science without all the fairytales taught to you by so called teachers.

Point of all this? get to the closing argument already your losing me with nonsense.

You have yet to prove anything about information loss

 

[Youwerecreated]

Your question disproves your theory. If natural selection weeded out the other genes wouldnt every animal be a pure bred? Pure breeds are pure breeds because it was only bred within its genetic line. Of course a purebreed boxer only produces a boxer, but if you mate a purebreed with a different kind of dog the offspring will not be a purebred.

Every dog is of the same subspecies. The differences between breeds are just physical traits. Thats like saying that when a blonde mates with a redhead information is lost. Information is "mixed". Do you know anything about mendel? Theyre just different genotypes.

"What happens to the information from several different breeds that it took to make up a boxer ?"

It is in corporated into their genetic code.

Animal genomes have millions of bits of information that are remnants of retroviral infection. Everything is passed down. Do you really even know what your talking about? When i say genetic recombination do you have any idea what im talking about? Do you even understand how information is stored in DNA and how that information is expressed in the form of proteins. Its hilarious you have no idea what your talking about.

Chez.

No because we always have crossbreeding we call them muts or heinz 57 .Strays breed with whatever changing the gene pool.

What happens if a white person and let's say a black person produce offspring ?

It that continued on from generation to generation you will produce a different looking human.

Your grammar isnt good enough for me to quite get what ur saying. If you mean a white person and a black person mating make a unique person than yea...I know...thats natural selection....and by extension evolution. Thats what ive been saying the whole time...

You still have yet to prove anything about information loss. Humans have 46 chromosomes. An egg has 23 and a sperm has 23, they combine to make a person. What are you talking about?

Yes and half come from each parent blah blah blah.

Go back to the start and start anserwing my questions instead of trying to make a point from theory.

If not i'm done you got me ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

If mutations result in new species....why isn't this a species:

Not all mutations do that is my point.

We would all be deformed or diseaesed or dead that has been what i'm saying .

But your theory needs mutations to take over a gene pool or the change they talk about can't come.

Are mutations the engine that drives Macro-evolution or not ?

 

[cbirch2]

Lol actually...........

If were on the topic of pure breeds, lets talk about humans. If God created Adam, and Eve from his rib, and we are all descendants of those two people, why arent we pure bred? Why are there black people, native american people, chinese people.

"The genotype of a true breeding organism is homozygous. For example, a pure-bred variety of cat, such as Siamese, only produce kittens with Siamese characteristics because their ancestors were inbred until they were homozygous for all of the genes that produce the physical characteristics and temperament associated with the Siamese breed."

Pure breeds are caused by inbreeding. Example: Alaskan Husky.

"The base of The Alaskan husky sled dog in Alaska and Canada is the Native Village dog. The Interior Village dog is a leggier, rangier and taller dog that the coastal Eskimo Village types. "

The purebred alaskan husky was just inbred by Siberians.

So why arent people all pure bred, since were all inbreds.

 

[cbirch2]

If mutations result in new species....why isn't this a species:

Not all mutations do that is my point.

We would all be deformed or diseaesed or dead that has been what i'm saying .

But your theory needs mutations to take over a gene pool or the change they talk about can't come.

Are mutations the engine that drives Macro-evolution or not ?

I just proved how genetic mutations take over a gene pool. A change in the environment (over population, lack of food, introduction of a new predator, a flood, a disease, an ice age, a natural disaster, etc, etc) changes the definition of what is advantageous for any specific environment at any given time.

 

[editec]

Why do the anti God crowd attack the bible ?

Why do you care what the "anti-God" crowd thinks, does or says?

Seriously, why do you care about them at all?

 

[cbirch2]

No because we always have crossbreeding we call them muts or heinz 57 .Strays breed with whatever changing the gene pool.

What happens if a white person and let's say a black person produce offspring ?

It that continued on from generation to generation you will produce a different looking human.

Your grammar isnt good enough for me to quite get what ur saying. If you mean a white person and a black person mating make a unique person than yea...I know...thats natural selection....and by extension evolution. Thats what ive been saying the whole time...

You still have yet to prove anything about information loss. Humans have 46 chromosomes. An egg has 23 and a sperm has 23, they combine to make a person. What are you talking about?

Yes and half come from each parent blah blah blah.

Go back to the start and start anserwing my questions instead of trying to make a point from theory.

If not i'm done you got me ?

WHAT QUESTION? restate your question. Lets go one for one; one question one post and keep it simple. That way everyone is accountable for whats said and its kept organized.

 

[AllieBaba]

Why do the anti God crowd attack the bible ?

Why do you care what the "anti-God" crowd thinks, does or says?

Seriously, why do you care about them at all?

Because what they say is directed at me and meant to silence me.

It's not what they believe, it's what they propose...which is that freedom of speech should be limited to non-Christians. That's an attack, and I take issue with it.

The rest is just curiosity. I would like to know what they get out of attacking the bible, a book they don't believe in, and why they are offended by the faith of others to the extent they obsess about it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

If mutations result in new species....why isn't this a species:

Not all mutations do that is my point.

We would all be deformed or diseaesed or dead that has been what i'm saying .

But your theory needs mutations to take over a gene pool or the change they talk about can't come.

Are mutations the engine that drives Macro-evolution or not ?

I just proved how genetic mutations take over a gene pool. A change in the environment (over population, lack of food, introduction of a new predator, a flood, a disease, an ice age, a natural disaster, etc, etc) changes the definition of what is advantageous for any specific environment at any given time.

I'm on my phone this will be my only response until i get back home.

Well to start my view of a gene pool and your view of a gene pool are different. I view a gene pool is the breed or group as a whole.

But what you have shown is a deformed off spring with no new information both heads look alike there is no new information here. This proves my point. This is a loss or rearranging of the old information and it is still a certain breed.

This was the result of both parents having the same defective gene or teh rearraning of the information. It was not the result of a loss of information because as i stated earlier both heads look alike.

The only way this could become a breed to itself if it was bred to the others with the same genetics and you keep repeating it generation after generation like breeders do.

It took several different breeds to let's say make a boxer what happened to the information of the other breeds to make the boxer what it is ?

Why do they not have offspring that look like those other breeds ? I'll answer for you because the gene pool gets smaller. How can a gene pool get smaller without the loss of information ?

 

[AllieBaba]

And where's the new species?

Why are a saint bernard and a chihuhua the same species? They couldn't be any more different...and this is the result of breeding for particular traits...

When does the species change?

It doesn't.

 

[cbirch2]

Not all mutations do that is my point.

We would all be deformed or diseaesed or dead that has been what i'm saying .

But your theory needs mutations to take over a gene pool or the change they talk about can't come.

Are mutations the engine that drives Macro-evolution or not ?

I just proved how genetic mutations take over a gene pool. A change in the environment (over population, lack of food, introduction of a new predator, a flood, a disease, an ice age, a natural disaster, etc, etc) changes the definition of what is advantageous for any specific environment at any given time.

I'm on my phone this will be my only response until i get back home.

Well to start my view of a gene pool and your view of a gene pool are different. I view a gene pool is the breed or group as a whole.

But what you have shown is a deformed off spring with no new information both heads look alike there is no new information here. This proves my point. This is a loss or rearranging of the old information and it is still a certain breed.

This was the result of both parents having the same defective gene or teh rearraning of the information. It was not the result of a loss of information because as i stated earlier both heads look alike.

The only way this could become a breed to itself if it was bred to the others with the same genetics and you keep repeating it generation after generation like breeders do.

It took several different breeds to let's say make a boxer what happened to the information of the other breeds to make the boxer what it is ?

Why do they not have offspring that look like those other breeds ? I'll answer for you because the gene pool gets smaller. How can a gene pool get smaller without the loss of information ?

Well first of all, i didnt even post the picture of the snake so idk what your talking abut there. Your speculation as two why it happened it a totally uneducated guess, however.

But your example about the boxer is hilarious. The boxer was bred in 19th century germany from the Bullenbeisser and the Bulldog. The genetic information that came from the two parent breeds is mixed. Therefore the Boxer has about half its genetic code from the Bullenbeisser and the other half from the Bulldog. Natural Selection didnt just remove the Bulldog/Bullenseisser traits to create an entirely independent breed, thats ridiculous.

 

[Dr.Drock]

And where's the new species?

Why are a saint bernard and a chihuhua the same species? They couldn't be any more different...and this is the result of breeding for particular traits...

When does the species change?

It doesn't.

Three-spined stickleback - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stickleback Evolution

Happens in 13 generations, not only is this proof of speciation, it's observable proof.

 

[AllieBaba]

I don't see anything that refers to the creation of a new species.

Are you being deliberately misleading, do you not know what the hell a new species is, or what?

 

[cbirch2]

And where's the new species?

Why are a saint bernard and a chihuhua the same species? They couldn't be any more different...and this is the result of breeding for particular traits...

When does the species change?

It doesn't.

Wow. You still think species are some distinct thing. A species is a human separation based on how similar the anatomy and geneology between two organisms are. Every dog is of the same species, weve gone through this. Because every modern dog is descended from the gray wolf. Why are the coyote and the wolf so similar yet different species, answer that one for me. Its probably because theyre more distantly related.

We reclassify animals all the time based on new information about how closely related they are. Species, genus, family, order, phyllum, these are all just classifications as to how closely related a group of organisms is. Species holds no greater meaning than the rest. Except of course in your mind, since thats the only one you heard of before yesterday.

Rockin' tortoises: A 150-year-old new species

The two distinct species of tortoise on each side of that river have diverged into two separate species based on their different environments. Thats from the last two weeks. Should i find more?

Or maybe your explanation is that god made a different species for each side of the colorado river....

 

[cbirch2]

I don't see anything that refers to the creation of a new species.

Are you being deliberately misleading, do you not know what the hell a new species is, or what?

What in your mind is proof of "creation of new species", in the context of evolution? One organism giving birth to another organism that looks nothing like it?

 

[AllieBaba]

Oh wait, you're arguing to some other argument that has never been made again. I get it.

 

[cbirch2]

Oh wait, you're arguing to some other argument that has never been made again. I get it.

Nope im debating whatever "creation of new species" is.

Rockin' tortoises: A 150-year-old new species

How did two separate species of tortoise develop on each side of the colorado river? They look so similar, yet genetically they should be considered different species because at some point they diverged into two separate species to better survive in their environment.

Is that not evidence of a single animal diversifying into two species?

 

[AllieBaba]

You fucking idiot. They found a new species. It didn't spontaneously erupt.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I don't see anything that refers to the creation of a new species.

Are you being deliberately misleading, do you not know what the hell a new species is, or what?

3 different species formed from one, which is talked about in the links I provided, the different species evolved because the different attributes that are beneficial in freshwater.

"Three subspecies are currently recognised by the IUCN:

Gasterosteus aculeatus aculeatus is found in most of the species range, and is the subspecies most strictly termed the three-spined stickleback; its common name in Britain is the tiddler, although "tittlebat" is also sometimes used.
G. a. williamsoni, the unarmored threespine stickleback, is found only in North America; its recognised range is southern California, though there are isolated reports of it occurring in British Columbia and Mexico;
G. a. santaeannae, the Santa Ana stickleback, is also restricted to North America.
These subspecies actually represent three examples from the enormous range of morphological variation present within three-spined sticklebacks. These fall into two rough categories, the anadromous and the freshwater forms.

The anadramous form spends most of its adult life eating plankton and fish in the sea, and returns to freshwater to breed. The adult fish are typically between 6 and 10 cm long, and have 30 to 40 lateral armour plates along their sides. They also have long dorsal and pelvic spines. The anadromous form is morphologically similar all around the Northern Hemisphere, such that anadromous fish from the Baltic, the Atlantic and the Pacific all resemble each other quite closely.

Three-spined stickleback populations are also found in freshwater lakes and streams. These populations were probably formed when anadromous fish started spending their entire life cycle in freshwater, and thus evolved to live there all year round. Freshwater populations are extremely morphologically diverse, to the extent that many observers (and some taxonomists) would describe a new subspecies of three-spined stickleback in almost every lake in the Northern Hemisphere. One consistent difference between freshwater populations and their anadromous ancestors is the amount of body armour, as the majority of freshwater fish only have between 0 and 12 lateral armour plates, and shorter dorsal and pelvic spines. However, there are also large morphological differences between lakes. One major axis of variation is between populations found in deep, steep sided lakes and those in small, shallow lakes. The fish in the deep lakes typically feed in the surface waters on plankton, and often have large eyes, with short, slim bodies and an upturned jaw. Some researchers refer to this as the limnetic form. Fish from shallow lakes feed mainly on the lake bed, and are often long and heavy bodied with a relatively horizontal jaw and a small eye. These populations are referred to as the benthic form.

Since each watershed was probably colonised separately by anadromous sticklebacks, it is widely believed that morphologically similar populations in different watersheds or on different continents evolved independently. There is a unique population in the meromictic Pink Lake in Gatineau Park, Quebec.

One fascinating aspect of this morphological variation is that a number of lakes contain both a limnetic and a benthic type, and these do not interbreed with each other. Evolutionary biologists often define species as populations that do not interbreed with each other (the Biological Species Concept), and thus the benthics and limnetics within each lake would constitute separate species. These species pairs are an excellent example of how adaptation to different environments (in this case feeding in the surface waters or on the lake bed) can generate new species. This process has come to be termed ecological speciation. "

 

[cbirch2]

You fucking idiot. They found a new species. It didn't spontaneously erupt.

Are you serious? Why would i claim that? Wow you really cant follow.

What i/they are claiming, exactly, is that a species of tortoise migrated from Southern California to the Colorado River area and diversified into two species over generations based on which side of the river they inhabited.

"The enigmatic species from Baja California was previously thought to be a transplant from Tiburon Island, Sonora, Mexico, but turns out to be from California, or at least its founding mother was from there. "