Disbelief is not a choice

souggy said:
De nevo - "afresh", "from the beginning", "new", meaning neither parents carry the locus for dwarfism. It's a sporadic case where it mutates in a germ cell and is passed on to the offspring. Most form of achondroplastic dwarfism is also a dominant trait, meaning if a person is a dwarf and gets married, it's passed onto the children. We know this, yet we don't see a new ethnic group of dwarfs developing. Either it's not a desirable trait by normal women, or there is no selection pressure to keep these new mutations unique.

As for HIV, it's already being observed. Sex workers in Africa are already developing resistance to the virus. It was first noted around 1995, 1996. (ScienceDirect - The Lancet : Resistance to HIV-1 infection among persistently seronegative prostitutes in Nairobi, Kenya) and it's a recent subject of interest:

Resistance to HIV-1 infection among African sex workers is associated with global hyporesponsiveness in interleukin 4 production
Cutting Edge: Resistance to HIV-1 Infection among African Female Sex Workers Is Associated with Inhibitory KIR in the Absence of Their HLA Ligands

Mind you we don't fully understand why some are resistant to HIV. It must be emphasized, it's not a cure because 5 of the workers studied since 1995 lost immunity to the virus.

But virtually every single European descendant is the byproduct of several ancestors who were resistant to the Black Plague. The same thing will happen with HIV.
Click to expand...

Hopefully.


I know that the pollution in the Great Lakes made some fish go blind, and their offspring started to be born with double lenses over their eyes. These are all examples of adaptation.

When it comes to mutation, disease, etc. it still does not explain macro evolution.
 
Wirelessly posted

Dogs. Pigeons. Vegetables.

I realize all of these are the results of artifical selection, but the Great Dane no longer resembles the wolf, nor does the Chihuahua. In fact, a Chihuahua cannot breed with a Dane without artificial insemination.



The cauliflower doesn't resemble the kohlrabi at all, but they have the same ancestor: the wild cabbage.

These are actually macro-evolution we can observe with our own eyes without using a computer stimulation program. How is that a stretch jumping from that within artifical to natural selection?
 
Last edited:
souggy said:
Wirelessly posted

Dogs. Pigeons. Vegetables.

I realize all of these are the result of artifical selection, but the Great Dane no longer resembles the wolf, nor does the Chihuahua. In fact, a Chihuahua cannot breed with a Dane without artificial insemination.

The cauliflower doesn't resemble the kohlrabi at all, but they have the same ancestor: the wild cabbage.
Click to expand...

so, we dismiss genetics and just focus on the appearance? That's very short sighted. Evolution has very little to do with appearance, it is only the genetic change from one generation to the next. Also, artificial selection is the same thing as natural selection (there is no DNA manipulation going on here). Humans are just another an influencing factor. A nice experiment was performed on taming wild foxes in Russia. the handlers naturally selected the foxes that are most inclined towards humans. I forget how many generations it took to get the dog like behaviors but they were at the point that folks could go in and adopt one of the dog like foxes, take them home and everything. The dog like fox appearance was identical to the wild foxes.

(gee, and I said to myself I would not get involved... sigh)
 
Wirelessly posted

And actually I would contend these examples are not artifical selection, because from the dogs' point of view, they domesticated us to aid them in the hunt (hunting breeds), panders to their every needs (pets), to have opposable thumbs to store or open up packages (hauling breeds) and so on.

From a cows' point of view, the fact they can be subjected to a great deal of things which a wild animal would go bonkers prior to having a total nervous breakdown, it's a benefit for them to be tasty. Otherwise, they would had never fooled us to keep so many of their offspring alive generation after generation.

It's awfully a self-centric view to think WE dominated them when really neither can exist without the asssistence of the other.
 
Wirelessly posted

Cheetah said:
souggy said:
Wirelessly posted

Dogs. Pigeons. Vegetables.

I realize all of these are the result of artifical selection, but the Great Dane no longer resembles the wolf, nor does the Chihuahua. In fact, a Chihuahua cannot breed with a Dane without artificial insemination.

The cauliflower doesn't resemble the kohlrabi at all, but they have the same ancestor: the wild cabbage.
Click to expand...

so, we dismiss genetics and just focus on the appearance? That's very short sighted. Evolution has very little to do with appearance, it is only the genetic change from one generation to the next. Also, artificial selection is the same thing as natural selection (there is no DNA manipulation going on here). Humans are just another an influencing factor. A nice experiment was performed on taming wild foxes in Russia. the handlers naturally selected the foxes that are most inclined towards humans. I forget how many generations it took to get the dog like behaviors but they were at the point that folks could go in and adopt one of the dog like foxes, take them home and everything. The dog like fox appearance was identical to the wild foxes.

(gee, and I said to myself I would not get involved... sigh)
Click to expand...

I expanded.
 
Wirelessly posted (droid)

As a mutant, I eye genetic arguements with great suspicion.
 
Wirelessly posted

Cheetah, I realize the fallacy since many bacteria look alike, but are indeed different species; but in every debate with a creationist, they demand visual proof.
 
Last edited:
Wirelessly posted

sallylou said:
As a mutant, I eye genetic arguements with great suspicion.
Click to expand...
You should be proud of being a mutant! Every one of us is a mutant. Just your evolutionary card haven't been pulled to make you one of the founders of a new species: Homo deafi. A new species in the making because the insects figured out scratching the chalkboards is a perfect defense against pesticide!
 
Last edited:
souggy said:
Wirelessly posted

Cheetah, I realize the fallacy since many bacteria look alike, but are indeed different species; but in every debate with a creationist, they demand visual proof.
Click to expand...

There are some really good resources out there on the web that address each (point by point) argument made by creationists. If I remember correctly, science has really good explanations and counter arguments for ALL of the creationists arguments. But it's hard to argue with someone with a religious or political agenda. Especially when that person is only interested in their viewpoint and really is only arguing to get more people in their court.

One popular argument has been "why are there NO transitional bla bla bla..." Science has provided the transitional proof but mostly they ignore it.
 
Hello, nice writeup, i am quite easy going i single and searching, i like to know you, u re confident and ouspoken,can we chat?what ue email so we can chat, i ma new don,t know how to put a pic here.kisses
 
souggy said:
Wirelessly posted

And actually I would contend these examples are not artifical selection, because from the dogs' point of view, they domesticated us to aid them in the hunt (hunting breeds), panders to their every needs (pets), to have opposable thumbs to store or open up packages (hauling breeds) and so on.

From a cows' point of view, the fact they can be subjected to a great deal of things which a wild animal would go bonkers prior to having a total nervous breakdown, it's a benefit for them to be tasty. Otherwise, they would had never fooled us to keep so many of their offspring alive generation after generation.

It's awfully a self-centric view to think WE dominated them when really neither can exist without the asssistence of the other.
Click to expand...

I don't even know to respond to this....I've never thought I would ever hear anyone say that cows fool humans into maligning them with abuse and stressful conditons (that would give a wild animal a nervous breakdown) for sake of keeping their offsprings alive.
 
DeafCaroline said:
I don't even know to respond to this....I've never thought I would ever hear anyone say that cows fool humans into maligning them with abuse and stressful conditons (that would give a wild animal a nervous breakdown) for sake of keeping their offsprings alive.
Click to expand...

Temple Grandin ?
 
What an interesting person. She doesn't promote animal welfare based on emotional arguments.
 
sallylou said:
What an interesting person. She doesn't promote animal welfare based on emotional arguments.
Click to expand...

Temple Grandin also eats meat even though she loves animals and tries to make their life and death stress free.

She says it is what we are designed for.
 
Bottesini said:
Temple Grandin also eats meat even though she loves animals and tries to make their life and death stress free.

She says it is what we are designed for.
Click to expand...

I gotta agree with her. There is design in nature.
 
Back
Top