[Stoner]

Originally Posted by imrippinit

Natural selection and Evolution are different. The dog is a good example to use for contrast. Most scientists agree that all dogs are decedent from one basic species. Selective breeding has led us to many different varieties. It is interesting that from a wolf it is still possible to use selective breeding to produce a wide variety of sizes and shapes of new dogs. However, it would be impossible to produce a wolf type dog by breeding Chihuahuas. Genetic diversity can produce variant species over time, but as diversity is decreased possible variants are also decreased.

So, Natural selection is fact. What remains theory is that a completely different genetic structure can mutate from an existing genetic structure. In other words, getting a wolf from breeding Chihuahua's. Evolution is not possible. Creatures can only develop from the existing gene pools.

Ha!


I had you pegged as an extremist fundamentalist in the political thread you started


Can I call'em or what

Evolution is not possible. Creatures can only develop from the existing gene pools.

Non sequitur...............change the dominant allele ratios and you have demonstrated evolution. Add mutation and selective recombination ......and you further alter allele ratios.

In other words, getting a wolf from breeding Chihuahua's. Evolution is not possible.

Logical fallacy.
Genetically speaking, crossing the wolf with a chihuahua merely produces a resultant of the genetic code being expressed in the offspring.
As the wolf and the dog are of the same specie, not much can be said other what you see is what you got.
Evolution is not a factor, one way or the other, in your example.

Creatures can only develop from the existing gene pools.

And as the gene pools change, so does the morphology of the organism change.

Natural selection and Evolution are different.

Ummmm..............no.............natural selection is one of the elements of the process of evolution.

It is interesting that from a wolf it is still possible to use selective breeding to produce a wide variety of sizes and shapes of new dogs.

Wolves and dogs are of the same specie, with dogs being a subspecie. Man bred out of the wolf, the characteristics he found undesirable and focused on desirable ones.
That was not natural selection.

Genetic diversity can produce variant species over time

Yes..........but in making that statement, you just contradicted yourself on the issue of evolution. Gene pools do change over time because of mutation and recombination of genetic sequences that are selected by............get this..........natural selection......which you admit to, even if incorrectly.

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by imrippinit

.................

This Hebrew "code" results in 47.12264150943 feet, or an error of less than 15 thousandths of an inch! ............................

Not to be too picky............but doesn't that just make it close, not correct?

[imrippinit]

Originally Posted by valis

cool. Prove it.

It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.
Proverbs 25:2

[imrippinit]

Originally Posted by Stoner

Not to be too picky............but doesn't that just make it close, not correct?

That's too picky. You know as well as I that one cannot use Pi without rounding at some point.

[imrippinit]

Originally Posted by Stoner

Non sequitur...............change the dominant allele ratios and you have demonstrated evolution. Add mutation and selective recombination ......and you further alter allele ratios.


Logical fallacy.
Genetically speaking, crossing the wolf with a chihuahua merely produces a resultant of the genetic code being expressed in the offspring.
As the wolf and the dog are of the same specie, not much can be said other what you see is what you got.
Evolution is not a factor, one way or the other, in your example.


And as the gene pools change, so does the morphology of the organism change.



Ummmm..............no.............natural selection is one of the elements of the process of evolution.



Wolves and dogs are of the same specie, with dogs being a subspecie. Man bred out of the wolf, the characteristics he found undesirable and focused on desirable ones.
That was not natural selection.


Yes..........but in making that statement, you just contradicted yourself on the issue of evolution. Gene pools do change over time because of mutation and recombination of genetic sequences that are selected by............get this..........natural selection......which you admit to, even if incorrectly.

I disagree.

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by imrippinit

Chuck and I both disagree with your assertion. I know Chuck well enough to speak on his behalf regarding this question.

It is hard to shake a bias that has been burned into one's psyche. When one incorporates scientific truths from the Bible it renders much of what is taught as fact today to be conjecture or theory that is not actually provable by scientific method. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Its easier however, to have faith and simply take the Bible at its word rather than to actually engage in science to prove it. God does however encourage science.

Chuck and I both disagree with your assertion. I know Chuck well enough to speak on his behalf regarding this questio

Not good enough in a debate arena

It is hard to shake a bias that has been burned into one's psyche.

Agreed.
The bias emanating from the extremist fundamentalist has been well documented in this forum ....and others elsewhere.
You can never question why you believe what you do beyond symbols of ancient languages , translated through time whose context becomes questionable with each new generation.
This is the main separation between religion and science.............science , good science anyway,.......is always questioning itself, and as such is not a religion. Just pointing out that the two concepts aren't very comparable.
Religion abhors doubt.........science is based on skepticism and allows for challenge.

When one incorporates scientific truths from the Bible...........

Well, the Bible is not a science book.
Any laws of science you perceive is due to your translation of it.

When one incorporates scientific truths from the Bible it renders much of what is taught as fact today to be conjecture or theory that is not actually provable by scientific method.

For example?

Its easier however, to have faith and simply take the Bible at its word rather than to actually engage in science to prove it.

Yes it is.
But then, I don't interpret the Bible in the same manner that you do.
Also, I don't engage science to prove what is out of the realm of science and known by man.
After all, science in it's finality is just man's method of studying the physical reality he exists in, not the spiritual aspects of now or afterlife.

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by imrippinit

I disagree.

Of course you do...........you can't help it _

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by imrippinit

That's too picky. You know as well as I that one cannot use Pi without rounding at some point.

You brought it up.
It's not accurate.

Personally, I think it's a bad decision to bring in these similarities, as any error disproves your position of infallibility.

[imrippinit]

Originally Posted by Stoner

Not good enough in a debate arena


Agreed.
The bias emanating from the extremist fundamentalist has been well documented in this forum ....and others elsewhere.
You can never question why you believe what you do beyond symbols of ancient languages , translated through time whose context becomes questionable with each new generation.
This is the main separation between religion and science.............science , good science anyway,.......is always questioning itself, and as such is not a religion. Just pointing out that the two concepts aren't very comparable.
Religion abhors doubt.........science is based on skepticism and allows for challenge.


Well, the Bible is not a science book.
Any laws of science you perceive is due to your translation of it.


For example?



Yes it is.
But then, I don't interpret the Bible in the same manner that you do.
Also, I don't engage science to prove what is out of the realm of science and known by man.
After all, science in it's finality is just man's method of studying the physical reality he exists in, not the spiritual aspects of now or afterlife.

I disagree and I will not repeat myself to answer questions that have already been answered. Ad nasium you can line item previous responses to which answers have already been provided but I refuse to be bogged down in repeating myself or responding to semantical opinion.

As soon as I detect spin I will ignore.

You are not interested in the truth or honest debate. You are only interested in disproving points of view you disagree with. I know your type. I can give you good evidence that is at worst only plausible and you will turn and say that's not good enough and that your theory is fact. You remind me of the bad guys in Ayn Rand novels. Therefore, I can choose to give your diatribes one word answers. Its a free forum and Suri law does not apply.

[iltos]

my, my ....things are moving quickly today

here's that essay i mentioned in post 59

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by imrippinit

I disagree and I will not repeat myself to answer questions that have already been answered. Ad nasium you can line item previous responses to which answers have already been provided but I refused to be bogged down in repeating myself or responding to semantical opinion.

As soon as I detect spin I will ignore.

You are not interested in the truth or honest debate. You are only interested in disproving points of view you disagree with. I know your type. I can give you good evidence that is at worst only plausible and you will turn and say that's not good enough and that your theory is fact. You remind me of the bad guys in Ayn Rand novels. Therefore, I can choose to give your diatribes one word answers. Its a free forum and Suri law does not apply.

LOL!






New to the concept of debate?..................

[iltos]

Originally Posted by Stoner

LOL!






New to the concept of debate?..................

hmmm....not really
i've heard that response before

[Stoner]

Hi-ya iltos

[imrippinit]

Originally Posted by Stoner

New to the concept of debate?

No. Neither am I new to the concept of ...

[sy2]

Originally Posted by imrippinit

Natural selection and Evolution are different. The dog is a good example to use for contrast. Most scientists agree that all dogs are decedent from one basic species. Selective breeding has led us to many different varieties. It is interesting that from a wolf it is still possible to use selective breeding to produce a wide variety of sizes and shapes of new dogs. However, it would be impossible to produce a wolf type dog by breeding Chihuahuas. Genetic diversity can produce variant species over time, but as diversity is decreased possible variants are also decreased.

So, Natural selection is fact. What remains theory is that a completely different genetic structure can mutate from an existing genetic structure. In other words, getting a wolf from breeding Chihuahua's. Evolution is not possible. Creatures can only develop from the existing gene pools.

Oh boy.

You've got your theories/facts backwards. Evolution is the fact, Natural Selection is the theory that attempts to explain it.

The dog is a good example to use for contrast. Most scientists agree that all dogs are decedent from one basic species. Selective breeding has led us to many different varieties. It is interesting that from a wolf it is still possible to use selective breeding to produce a wide variety of sizes and shapes of new dogs.

That's evolution - just not by natural selection. Evolution is the fact - most staunch creationists will even admit this. It is observable.

However, it would be impossible to produce a wolf type dog by breeding Chihuahuas. Genetic diversity can produce variant species over time, but as diversity is decreased possible variants are also decreased.

So in one sentence you say that all dogs (wolves included) are descended from one species, and in the next you're saying that they aren't? "Scientists agree that all various species of dog come from one base species." "Given a base species of dog (in your example Chihuahua), its impossible to produce a different type of dog (in your example a wolf)."

How you can hold both of those opinions is beyond me.

What remains theory is that a completely different genetic structure can mutate from an existing genetic structure.

Structures don't develop by going immediately from stage A -> F. Stages B-E are also in there, and different structures generally evolve in steps, with the intermediate structures usually playing some secondary functional role.

And that's not even always the case. There was an article in Nature awhile back that discussed how the manipulation/mutation of only one or two genes would dramatically change the number/formation of legs in arthropods. I found a similar article here, but you'll have to subscribe to Nature.com or get the magazine to read the other one.

Evolution is not possible. Creatures can only develop from the existing gene pools.

Evolution is a proven fact and has been observed and purposefully manipulated many times. Gene pools change.