Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[Youwerecreated]

Any time you selectively breed a species, that is, breed them to have specifically sought after traits, you are genetically modifying that species, regardless of the methodology you use.

Of course you selectively breed for certain traits that however is not altering the genome,in other words genetically modified. If they were not close enough genetically you could not produce offspring. You are not,I repeat you are not modifying the genome like you do for genetically modified food. Dawson shows his ignorance for agreeing with you.

as always you're wrong.How is selective breeding a form of biotechnology?
In: Biology
Answer:
Selective breeding is one form of biotechnology important in agriculture and medicine, because when scientists manipulate the genetic makeup of an organism, they are using biotechnology.
How is selective breeding a form of biotechnology

Eots explained it earlier I won't waste time with someone that can't read.

 

[Youwerecreated]

as always you're wrong.How is selective breeding a form of biotechnology?
In: Biology
Answer:
Selective breeding is one form of biotechnology important in agriculture and medicine, because when scientists manipulate the genetic makeup of an organism, they are using biotechnology.
How is selective breeding a form of biotechnology

Still your ignorance shows up.

sure slapdick....

I know you are pretty dense but just maybe this won't go over your head.

Recombinant DNA technology in eukaryotes - An Introduction to Genetic Analysis - NCBI Bookshelf

 

[Youwerecreated]

why is it different...because we are not fusing spider genes with dog genes thats how its different and dogs and wolfs are in fact in the same species..thats why they can breed naturally together...if you take away selective breeding and dogs are left to interbreed on their own, revert to a stereotypical form within a few generations -- stocky animals with yellowish, medium coats, furry tails, short muzzles and upright ears.

they also fuse genes from plants to animals and vice versa. These guys just do not understand genetics well enough to argue it.

you can always dream...

GM Crops Being Mixed With Human, Other Animal Genes Field Experiments Of Bizarre Genetically Engineered Crops Doubled In Past Two Years Authorized Experiments Are A Risk To Human Health And The Environment

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do you really understand evolution ?

more complex organisms requires more information for its description. the evolution of increased complexity certainly violate the second law of thermodynamics.

Since a more complex plant or animal requires more information for its description, it would carry more genetic information in its genes. Evolution would have to produce this stored genetic information. natural selection is supposed to accomplish this because the living organism will use free energy from its environment to pay for the production of this new genetic information, it has to do it without violating the second law. This proposition has never been proved experimentally, so the production of greater biological complexity through the natural process of evolution would certainly violate the law of degeneration.

more complex organisms requires more information for its description. the evolution of increased complexity certainly violate the second law of thermodynamics.

Why?

the production of greater biological complexity through the natural process of evolution would certainly violate the law of degeneration.

The law of degeneration? Now you're just making shit up.

I mean more than before. LOL!

No it is an observed fact I am not making it up. Here I will give you an example and quote a source further explaining it.

Purebred animals over time suffer from Genetic degeneration because they are from a much smaller gene pool. The mut is from a much larger gene pool that is why they are healthier than purebreeds. More mutations remain in a smaller gene pool than in a much larger gene pool. Being from a much larger gene pool slows genetic degeneration. Your side does not want to admit to this observed fact because it presents problems for their theory.

11.3 The degeneration law
The examples named above, especially the blind water scorpion, the flightless cormorant, and the day-fly, show a simple and logical, but as far as I know not yet formulated, biological law. It goes as follows:

A species or population has a tendency in the long run to lose those characteristics that it does not absolutely need to survive.

For clarification: that is ‘tendency’ and ‘in the long run’. That means in practice, in terms of a human life span, that it can take a very long time before it is done. Furthermore: the time it takes, depends on the largeness of the population. The larger a population, the slower degeneration occurs. The smaller a population, the quicker it will impoverish and degenerate over time.
The reason for this ‘law’ is mutation and that is called genetic drift. If a certain characteristic (flight, sight, or whatever) is no longer a determining factor for the survival of the species, a mutation which damages that characteristic will not be selected out. The carrier of this mutant characteristic can therefore reproduce in peace and by sheer coincidence; the lost characteristic can spread throughout the entire population. This coincidental spreading of genes, which does not particularly take place due to selection, is a familiar concept, called genetic drift. Genetic drift is sheer coincidence: who mates with who and how many offspring do they have, which can reproduce again, etc. But other factors such as this also play a part: can a mutant gene ‘hitch a ride’ with a very beneficial gene, because it is very close to this beneficial gene on the chromosome?. This makes the chance that the two become separated by recombination very small. Because the beneficial gene is selected for, the mutant ‘hitches a ride’ and also spreads itself throughout the population. This arbitrary aspect of genetic drift can just as easily mean that a mutant characteristic disappears again by pure coincidence! But in the long run, a mutation will damage that characteristic again, so that it can once more spread itself by genetic drift. However, if at a certain point in time every individual of the population has become homozygous for that damaged characteristic, there is no way back, because the original undamaged gene has been lost. And that means that a population in the end has a tendency to lose that characteristic.It can be clear that the degeneration law is an appropriate name for this law.[5]

Evolution is in fact Degeneration: 11. Degeneration Exists

This is a good read on the reality of degeneration.

more complex organisms requires more information for its description. the evolution of increased complexity certainly violate the second law of thermodynamics.

Why?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

organic food is hardly a sham and no one is calling it.. genetically non-manipulated...but there is a huge difference between selective breeding and
and genetically modifying with genes for other species ...

Oh, I agree completely that laboratory manipulation of the genes of food is different than field manipulation of the genes of our food. That difference being primarily one of time. Natural selection takes thousands to millions of years. Artificial selection takes a few generations. Genetic manipulation in the laboratory can take as little as a year, maybe two. Regardless, what is going on in all cases is genetic modification.

the difference is one method will kill you or leave to sterile and the other will not

Really? Explain how these modified crops do that.

 

[eots]

Oh, I agree completely that laboratory manipulation of the genes of food is different than field manipulation of the genes of our food. That difference being primarily one of time. Natural selection takes thousands to millions of years. Artificial selection takes a few generations. Genetic manipulation in the laboratory can take as little as a year, maybe two. Regardless, what is going on in all cases is genetic modification.

the difference is one method will kill you or leave to sterile and the other will not

Really? Explain how these modified crops do that.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4M-5_qqJD4]France checks the scientific validity of shocking GM food study - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here is the difference that you seem to be confused over. Cross pollination is natural which falls under the term as organic .Genetic modifications are when scientists alter the genome of foods. Selective breeding would also be consider natural and not altering the genome.

Any time you selectively breed a species, that is, breed them to have specifically sought after traits, you are genetically modifying that species, regardless of the methodology you use.

Of course you selectively breed for certain traits that however is not altering the genome,in other words genetically modified. If they were not close enough genetically you could not produce offspring. You are not,I repeat you are not modifying the genome like you do for genetically modified food. Dawson shows his ignorance for agreeing with you.

Of course you selectively breed for certain traits that however is not altering the genome,in other words genetically modified.

If US corn yield was 60 bushels per acre in 1964 and 80 bushels per acre in 1969, the genome didn't change?

 

[eots]

Genetically Engineered Crop Gene Found for First Time in Bacteria in Human Digestive System
Concerns About Antibiotic Resistance Raised

WASHINGTON - July 17 - New evidence from British scientists raises serious questions about the safety of genetically engineered foods. A study published by the British Food Safety Standards Agency (FAS) showed for the first time that a gene inserted in a genetically engineered crop has found its way into bacteria in the human gut. Many engineered crops have antibiotic resistance marker genes inserted in them, and there are fears that if material from these marker genes passes into humans, people's ability to fight infections may be reduced.

Friends of the Earth

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

the difference is one method will kill you or leave to sterile and the other will not

Really? Explain how these modified crops do that.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4M-5_qqJD4]France checks the scientific validity of shocking GM food study - YouTube[/ame]

Really? Explain how these modified crops do that.

 

[eots]

Really? Explain how these modified crops do that.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4M-5_qqJD4]France checks the scientific validity of shocking GM food study - YouTube[/ame]

Really? Explain how these modified crops do that.

By mixing genes from totally unrelated species,you can create toxins, allergens, carcinogens, and nutritional deficiencies not present before

 

[Youwerecreated]

more complex organisms requires more information for its description. the evolution of increased complexity certainly violate the second law of thermodynamics.

Why?

the production of greater biological complexity through the natural process of evolution would certainly violate the law of degeneration.

The law of degeneration? Now you're just making shit up.

I mean more than before. LOL!

No it is an observed fact I am not making it up. Here I will give you an example and quote a source further explaining it.

Purebred animals over time suffer from Genetic degeneration because they are from a much smaller gene pool. The mut is from a much larger gene pool that is why they are healthier than purebreeds. More mutations remain in a smaller gene pool than in a much larger gene pool. Being from a much larger gene pool slows genetic degeneration. Your side does not want to admit to this observed fact because it presents problems for their theory.

11.3 The degeneration law
The examples named above, especially the blind water scorpion, the flightless cormorant, and the day-fly, show a simple and logical, but as far as I know not yet formulated, biological law. It goes as follows:

A species or population has a tendency in the long run to lose those characteristics that it does not absolutely need to survive.

For clarification: that is ‘tendency’ and ‘in the long run’. That means in practice, in terms of a human life span, that it can take a very long time before it is done. Furthermore: the time it takes, depends on the largeness of the population. The larger a population, the slower degeneration occurs. The smaller a population, the quicker it will impoverish and degenerate over time.
The reason for this ‘law’ is mutation and that is called genetic drift. If a certain characteristic (flight, sight, or whatever) is no longer a determining factor for the survival of the species, a mutation which damages that characteristic will not be selected out. The carrier of this mutant characteristic can therefore reproduce in peace and by sheer coincidence; the lost characteristic can spread throughout the entire population. This coincidental spreading of genes, which does not particularly take place due to selection, is a familiar concept, called genetic drift. Genetic drift is sheer coincidence: who mates with who and how many offspring do they have, which can reproduce again, etc. But other factors such as this also play a part: can a mutant gene ‘hitch a ride’ with a very beneficial gene, because it is very close to this beneficial gene on the chromosome?. This makes the chance that the two become separated by recombination very small. Because the beneficial gene is selected for, the mutant ‘hitches a ride’ and also spreads itself throughout the population. This arbitrary aspect of genetic drift can just as easily mean that a mutant characteristic disappears again by pure coincidence! But in the long run, a mutation will damage that characteristic again, so that it can once more spread itself by genetic drift. However, if at a certain point in time every individual of the population has become homozygous for that damaged characteristic, there is no way back, because the original undamaged gene has been lost. And that means that a population in the end has a tendency to lose that characteristic.It can be clear that the degeneration law is an appropriate name for this law.[5]

Evolution is in fact Degeneration: 11. Degeneration Exists

This is a good read on the reality of degeneration.

more complex organisms requires more information for its description. the evolution of increased complexity certainly violate the second law of thermodynamics.

Why?

To change a trait or function you need new genetic information.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Any time you selectively breed a species, that is, breed them to have specifically sought after traits, you are genetically modifying that species, regardless of the methodology you use.

Of course you selectively breed for certain traits that however is not altering the genome,in other words genetically modified. If they were not close enough genetically you could not produce offspring. You are not,I repeat you are not modifying the genome like you do for genetically modified food. Dawson shows his ignorance for agreeing with you.

Of course you selectively breed for certain traits that however is not altering the genome,in other words genetically modified.

If US corn yield was 60 bushels per acre in 1964 and 80 bushels per acre in 1969, the genome didn't change?

I should have said that a little differently.

If you cross breed a jersey cow with a holstein cow to get more milk you achieved the trait naturally that means the gene already exists in the genome .now if you selectively remove a gene and added a foreign gene to get the milk production up,you have just GM that organism. You're manipulating the genome by adding a gene that did not exist before.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No it is an observed fact I am not making it up. Here I will give you an example and quote a source further explaining it.

Purebred animals over time suffer from Genetic degeneration because they are from a much smaller gene pool. The mut is from a much larger gene pool that is why they are healthier than purebreeds. More mutations remain in a smaller gene pool than in a much larger gene pool. Being from a much larger gene pool slows genetic degeneration. Your side does not want to admit to this observed fact because it presents problems for their theory.

11.3 The degeneration law
The examples named above, especially the blind water scorpion, the flightless cormorant, and the day-fly, show a simple and logical, but as far as I know not yet formulated, biological law. It goes as follows:

A species or population has a tendency in the long run to lose those characteristics that it does not absolutely need to survive.

For clarification: that is ‘tendency’ and ‘in the long run’. That means in practice, in terms of a human life span, that it can take a very long time before it is done. Furthermore: the time it takes, depends on the largeness of the population. The larger a population, the slower degeneration occurs. The smaller a population, the quicker it will impoverish and degenerate over time.
The reason for this ‘law’ is mutation and that is called genetic drift. If a certain characteristic (flight, sight, or whatever) is no longer a determining factor for the survival of the species, a mutation which damages that characteristic will not be selected out. The carrier of this mutant characteristic can therefore reproduce in peace and by sheer coincidence; the lost characteristic can spread throughout the entire population. This coincidental spreading of genes, which does not particularly take place due to selection, is a familiar concept, called genetic drift. Genetic drift is sheer coincidence: who mates with who and how many offspring do they have, which can reproduce again, etc. But other factors such as this also play a part: can a mutant gene ‘hitch a ride’ with a very beneficial gene, because it is very close to this beneficial gene on the chromosome?. This makes the chance that the two become separated by recombination very small. Because the beneficial gene is selected for, the mutant ‘hitches a ride’ and also spreads itself throughout the population. This arbitrary aspect of genetic drift can just as easily mean that a mutant characteristic disappears again by pure coincidence! But in the long run, a mutation will damage that characteristic again, so that it can once more spread itself by genetic drift. However, if at a certain point in time every individual of the population has become homozygous for that damaged characteristic, there is no way back, because the original undamaged gene has been lost. And that means that a population in the end has a tendency to lose that characteristic.It can be clear that the degeneration law is an appropriate name for this law.[5]

Evolution is in fact Degeneration: 11. Degeneration Exists

This is a good read on the reality of degeneration.

more complex organisms requires more information for its description. the evolution of increased complexity certainly violate the second law of thermodynamics.

Why?

To change a trait or function you need new genetic information.

Now all you need to do is show why new genetic information violates the 2nd Law.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Of course you selectively breed for certain traits that however is not altering the genome,in other words genetically modified. If they were not close enough genetically you could not produce offspring. You are not,I repeat you are not modifying the genome like you do for genetically modified food. Dawson shows his ignorance for agreeing with you.

Of course you selectively breed for certain traits that however is not altering the genome,in other words genetically modified.

If US corn yield was 60 bushels per acre in 1964 and 80 bushels per acre in 1969, the genome didn't change?

I should have said that a little differently.

If you cross breed a jersey cow with a holstein cow to get more milk you achieved the trait naturally that means the gene already exists in the genome .now if you selectively remove a gene and added a foreign gene to get the milk production up,you have just GM that organism. You're manipulating the genome by adding a gene that did not exist before.

How did US corn yield go from 60 bushels per acre in 1964 to 80 bushels per acre in 1969? Do you feel they added a gene that did not exist before?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

France checks the scientific validity of shocking GM food study - YouTube

Really? Explain how these modified crops do that.

By mixing genes from totally unrelated species,you can create toxins, allergens, carcinogens, and nutritional deficiencies not present before

Now all you need to do is find the toxins, allergens, or carcinogens that you feel were added by the new genes.

 

[Youwerecreated]

more complex organisms requires more information for its description. the evolution of increased complexity certainly violate the second law of thermodynamics.

Why?

To change a trait or function you need new genetic information.

Now all you need to do is show why new genetic information violates the 2nd Law.

I will say you're correct, the more I have read the more I believe it's a bad argument to say evolution would violate the 2nd law.

Now for the kicker,how did the Dna code arise ? how is new genetic information produced so evolution can take place ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Of course you selectively breed for certain traits that however is not altering the genome,in other words genetically modified.

If US corn yield was 60 bushels per acre in 1964 and 80 bushels per acre in 1969, the genome didn't change?

I should have said that a little differently.

If you cross breed a jersey cow with a holstein cow to get more milk you achieved the trait naturally that means the gene already exists in the genome .now if you selectively remove a gene and added a foreign gene to get the milk production up,you have just GM that organism. You're manipulating the genome by adding a gene that did not exist before.

How did US corn yield go from 60 bushels per acre in 1964 to 80 bushels per acre in 1969? Do you feel they added a gene that did not exist before?

I don't know but you have a couple of choices. They increased the acreage,they genetically modified the corn or it was through selective breeding.

Now how did it happen ?

 

[daws101]

Of course you selectively breed for certain traits that however is not altering the genome,in other words genetically modified. If they were not close enough genetically you could not produce offspring. You are not,I repeat you are not modifying the genome like you do for genetically modified food. Dawson shows his ignorance for agreeing with you.

as always you're wrong.How is selective breeding a form of biotechnology?
In: Biology
Answer:
Selective breeding is one form of biotechnology important in agriculture and medicine, because when scientists manipulate the genetic makeup of an organism, they are using biotechnology.
How is selective breeding a form of biotechnology

Eots explained it earlier I won't waste time with someone that can't read.

eot's does what he always does...spews bullshit. just like you.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Really? Explain how these modified crops do that.

By mixing genes from totally unrelated species,you can create toxins, allergens, carcinogens, and nutritional deficiencies not present before

Now all you need to do is find the toxins, allergens, or carcinogens that you feel were added by the new genes.

I don't think you realize how hard it is to remove and add a new gene. I can't even imagine removing those things.If we could do that we could eliminate genetic disease and disorders.

That is what they are working on but they are not even close.

 

[daws101]

Still your ignorance shows up.

sure slapdick....

I know you are pretty dense but just maybe this won't go over your head.

Recombinant DNA technology in eukaryotes - An Introduction to Genetic Analysis - NCBI Bookshelf

it confirms what I posted, thanks!