Collarchat.com

Join Our Community
Collarchat.com

Home  Login  Search 

RE: Evolution/Creation debate


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Evolution/Creation debate Page: <<   < prev  33 34 [35] 36 37   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/26/2014 6:21:06 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

Again when we look around us, it seems to make a difference, as was pointed out when looking at mules, it generally causes infertility and when it doesn't there isn't a new sustained species developed with a different number of chromosomes, the number seems to always go back to one number or the other.


The answer to the seeming dilemma of speciation with different chromosome numbers that you and creationists raise is inbreeding between siblings in an isolated population. Since the siblings come from the same parents their mutation carrying gametes are compatible. In other words the first human parents were brother and sister.

Animals also have a lot of somatic polyploidy (and aneuploidy, an abnormal number of chromosomes). Your liver cells are mostly hexaploid and many of your skin cells are tetraploid. (Teachers are sometimes stunned to realize that we are somatic diploids only for a bit after we become zygotes. Thereafter we become predictably ploidy mosaics.)  But since the germ line is isolated, this is usually not heritable (no ovules from your skin cells, etc.). And even when it affects the germ line, since animals cannot self fertilize, it is difficult to produce a new uniform population (new diploid sperm usually must fertilize haploid eggs giving rise to largely sterile triploids). The best away around this in animals is very small populations. All very small populations are automatically highly inbred. Sib matings are ideal (both sibs carry same new arrangement heterozygously by inheritance from one parent). And only very small populations allow the new form to rapidly stabilize.

Real life has lots of further interesting ways around these problems. Articles and books on chromosomal speciation will lead you through these.

But the essence is that very small populations are usually needed in animals, just as you wrote. And that somatic plating out and self-fertilization (and often, very small breeding populations) make chromosomal speciation much easier in plants.

In animals, geographic isolation [allopatry] has been the driver of much speciation, most clearly in vertebrates. Geographic isolation has also been important in plants. Climatic shifts have driven many cycles of geographic isolation and reconnection, especially since the Pliocene. Â Continental fragmentation and migration to islands involves much geographic isolation also.

I hope this puts your mind at ease
SOURCE

(in reply to Milesnmiles)
Profile   Post #: 681
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/26/2014 6:33:45 AM   
chatterbox24


Posts: 2182
Joined: 1/22/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Again when we look around us, it seems to make a difference, as was pointed out when looking at mules, it generally causes infertility and when it doesn't there isn't a new sustained species developed with a different number of chromosomes, the number seems to always go back to one number or the other.


The answer to the seeming dilemma of speciation with different chromosome numbers that you and creationists raise is inbreeding between siblings in an isolated population. Since the siblings come from the same parents their mutation carrying gametes are compatible. In other words the first human parents were brother and sister.

Animals also have a lot of somatic polyploidy (and aneuploidy, an abnormal number of chromosomes). Your liver cells are mostly hexaploid and many of your skin cells are tetraploid. (Teachers are sometimes stunned to realize that we are somatic diploids only for a bit after we become zygotes. Thereafter we become predictably ploidy mosaics.)  But since the germ line is isolated, this is usually not heritable (no ovules from your skin cells, etc.). And even when it affects the germ line, since animals cannot self fertilize, it is difficult to produce a new uniform population (new diploid sperm usually must fertilize haploid eggs giving rise to largely sterile triploids). The best away around this in animals is very small populations. All very small populations are automatically highly inbred. Sib matings are ideal (both sibs carry same new arrangement heterozygously by inheritance from one parent). And only very small populations allow the new form to rapidly stabilize.

Real life has lots of further interesting ways around these problems. Articles and books on chromosomal speciation will lead you through these.

But the essence is that very small populations are usually needed in animals, just as you wrote. And that somatic plating out and self-fertilization (and often, very small breeding populations) make chromosomal speciation much easier in plants.

In animals, geographic isolation [allopatry] has been the driver of much speciation, most clearly in vertebrates. Geographic isolation has also been important in plants. Climatic shifts have driven many cycles of geographic isolation and reconnection, especially since the Pliocene. Â Continental fragmentation and migration to islands involves much geographic isolation also.

I hope this puts your mind at ease
SOURCE


I know you were not directing that post at me but the bolded part above bothers me. I have to say simply ahhhhh no.

< Message edited by chatterbox24 -- 2/26/2014 6:35:03 AM >


_____________________________

I am like a box of chocolates, you never know what variety you are going to get on any given day.

My crazy smells like jasmine, cloves and cat nip.

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 682
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/26/2014 6:49:03 AM   
thishereboi


Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43

Amazing, the Evolution skeptic Can do research, about mules, but can't be troubled to actually read up on the internal cellular processes that happen in fertilization and sexual reproduction! Isn't everyone getting bored by willful ignorance multiplied and emphasized?



Bored? Eh, at times it has lagged but it can also be entertaining to see what lengths some people will go to convince others that their beliefs are the only right ones and anyone who believes different is a moron. Kinda reminds me of my old cocker spaniel when she got a hold of a bone and wouldn't let go. And speaking of dogs....to the poster who said it would be no problem to get a great dane to mate with a chihauhau....I want to see the video of that one.

_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert


This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi


(in reply to epiphiny43)
Profile   Post #: 683
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/26/2014 6:57:12 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
Whadda ya get when you cross and elephant with a chicken?














A dead chicken with a hole between its legs.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to thishereboi)
Profile   Post #: 684
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/26/2014 7:05:14 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: chatterbox24

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Again when we look around us, it seems to make a difference, as was pointed out when looking at mules, it generally causes infertility and when it doesn't there isn't a new sustained species developed with a different number of chromosomes, the number seems to always go back to one number or the other.


The answer to the seeming dilemma of speciation with different chromosome numbers that you and creationists raise is inbreeding between siblings in an isolated population. Since the siblings come from the same parents their mutation carrying gametes are compatible. In other words the first human parents were brother and sister.

Animals also have a lot of somatic polyploidy (and aneuploidy, an abnormal number of chromosomes). Your liver cells are mostly hexaploid and many of your skin cells are tetraploid. (Teachers are sometimes stunned to realize that we are somatic diploids only for a bit after we become zygotes. Thereafter we become predictably ploidy mosaics.)  But since the germ line is isolated, this is usually not heritable (no ovules from your skin cells, etc.). And even when it affects the germ line, since animals cannot self fertilize, it is difficult to produce a new uniform population (new diploid sperm usually must fertilize haploid eggs giving rise to largely sterile triploids). The best away around this in animals is very small populations. All very small populations are automatically highly inbred. Sib matings are ideal (both sibs carry same new arrangement heterozygously by inheritance from one parent). And only very small populations allow the new form to rapidly stabilize.

Real life has lots of further interesting ways around these problems. Articles and books on chromosomal speciation will lead you through these.

But the essence is that very small populations are usually needed in animals, just as you wrote. And that somatic plating out and self-fertilization (and often, very small breeding populations) make chromosomal speciation much easier in plants.

In animals, geographic isolation [allopatry] has been the driver of much speciation, most clearly in vertebrates. Geographic isolation has also been important in plants. Climatic shifts have driven many cycles of geographic isolation and reconnection, especially since the Pliocene. Â Continental fragmentation and migration to islands involves much geographic isolation also.

I hope this puts your mind at ease
SOURCE


I know you were not directing that post at me but the bolded part above bothers me. I have to say simply ahhhhh no.

I know! I know!

(in reply to chatterbox24)
Profile   Post #: 685
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/26/2014 7:24:40 AM   
chatterbox24


Posts: 2182
Joined: 1/22/2012
Status: offline
YOu kill me!!!! LOL.
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Whadda ya get when you cross and elephant with a chicken?














A dead chicken with a hole between its legs.



_____________________________

I am like a box of chocolates, you never know what variety you are going to get on any given day.

My crazy smells like jasmine, cloves and cat nip.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 686
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/26/2014 7:27:28 AM   
chatterbox24


Posts: 2182
Joined: 1/22/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


quote:

ORIGINAL: chatterbox24

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Again when we look around us, it seems to make a difference, as was pointed out when looking at mules, it generally causes infertility and when it doesn't there isn't a new sustained species developed with a different number of chromosomes, the number seems to always go back to one number or the other.


The answer to the seeming dilemma of speciation with different chromosome numbers that you and creationists raise is inbreeding between siblings in an isolated population. Since the siblings come from the same parents their mutation carrying gametes are compatible. In other words the first human parents were brother and sister.

Animals also have a lot of somatic polyploidy (and aneuploidy, an abnormal number of chromosomes). Your liver cells are mostly hexaploid and many of your skin cells are tetraploid. (Teachers are sometimes stunned to realize that we are somatic diploids only for a bit after we become zygotes. Thereafter we become predictably ploidy mosaics.)  But since the germ line is isolated, this is usually not heritable (no ovules from your skin cells, etc.). And even when it affects the germ line, since animals cannot self fertilize, it is difficult to produce a new uniform population (new diploid sperm usually must fertilize haploid eggs giving rise to largely sterile triploids). The best away around this in animals is very small populations. All very small populations are automatically highly inbred. Sib matings are ideal (both sibs carry same new arrangement heterozygously by inheritance from one parent). And only very small populations allow the new form to rapidly stabilize.

Real life has lots of further interesting ways around these problems. Articles and books on chromosomal speciation will lead you through these.

But the essence is that very small populations are usually needed in animals, just as you wrote. And that somatic plating out and self-fertilization (and often, very small breeding populations) make chromosomal speciation much easier in plants.

In animals, geographic isolation [allopatry] has been the driver of much speciation, most clearly in vertebrates. Geographic isolation has also been important in plants. Climatic shifts have driven many cycles of geographic isolation and reconnection, especially since the Pliocene. Â Continental fragmentation and migration to islands involves much geographic isolation also.

I hope this puts your mind at ease
SOURCE


I know you were not directing that post at me but the bolded part above bothers me. I have to say simply ahhhhh no.

I know! I know!


Bunch of stubborn mules, I tell ya. Its all interesting, it really is. Maybe its a little of both creation and evolution. I mean stranger things have happened.

_____________________________

I am like a box of chocolates, you never know what variety you are going to get on any given day.

My crazy smells like jasmine, cloves and cat nip.

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 687
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/26/2014 7:27:48 AM   
altoonamaster


Posts: 184
Joined: 2/6/2011
Status: offline
if you note the bible/adam and eve were cast out of the garden of eden/but no where does it say what happen next

(in reply to chatterbox24)
Profile   Post #: 688
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/26/2014 7:29:37 AM   
altoonamaster


Posts: 184
Joined: 2/6/2011
Status: offline
now years later a preacher on television says he knows what happen

(in reply to altoonamaster)
Profile   Post #: 689
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/26/2014 7:31:56 AM   
altoonamaster


Posts: 184
Joined: 2/6/2011
Status: offline
its better than the ark of the covetant

(in reply to altoonamaster)
Profile   Post #: 690
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/26/2014 7:44:04 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Whadda ya get when you cross and elephant with a chicken?




A dead chicken with a hole between its legs.

you owe me a new set of nostrils, I just blew mine out


_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 691
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/26/2014 7:49:12 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
There are limits to the evolution/creation debate, after all, Luce.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 692
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/26/2014 7:51:13 AM   
altoonamaster


Posts: 184
Joined: 2/6/2011
Status: offline
dont tell any christain there are limits god is perfect remember

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 693
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/26/2014 7:51:17 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
well I think we passed then about ten pages ago, thats why I was laughing so hard.
But im getting frusty with not being able to post anything so Im reading way to much today


_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 694
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/26/2014 7:56:18 AM   
freedomdwarf1


Posts: 6845
Joined: 10/23/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: altoonamaster
if you note the bible/adam and eve were cast out of the garden of eden/but no where does it say what happen next

quote:

ORIGINAL: altoonamaster
now years later a preacher on television says he knows what happen

quote:

ORIGINAL: altoonamaster
its better than the ark of the covetant

Yanno you can have more than one line in a reply don'tcha??

Anyways, if you follow the good book, the whole of humanity came from Adam and Eve.
Considering there was nobody else on the scene, it don't take a rocket scientist to work out what happened!
Which inherently implies that we all hail from an incestuous relationship from those two and their siblings.

So how can the bible also say that incest ist strictly verboten??
How hypocritical of it!!
And we are expected to believe and follow this shit - blindly??

I know I'm thick sometimes but I ain't that fuckin' stupid!!

(in reply to altoonamaster)
Profile   Post #: 695
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/26/2014 8:22:46 AM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: altoonamaster
god is perfect

You mean that god is an evolutionary dead end?

_____________________________

"I tend to pay attention when Rule speaks" - Aswad

"You are sweet, kind, and ever so smart, Rule. You ALWAYS stretch my mind and make me think further than I might have on my own" - Duskypearls

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

(in reply to altoonamaster)
Profile   Post #: 696
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/26/2014 8:24:05 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
He has recreated himself as an evolutionist, at the least.  He had to.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 697
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/26/2014 8:48:08 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline

Breeding blunder: Labradoodle creator laments designer dog craze
The Associated PressFeb. 7, 2014 at 10:00 AM ET
http://www.today.com/pets/breeding-blunder-labradoodle-creator-laments-designer-dog-craze-2D12072744


A 3-year-old Labradoodle, which is a mix between a standard poodle and Labrador retriever, jumps on his owner.
He’s deemed the man who unleashed the designer dog craze, this wave of Maltipoos, puggles and shorkies.

A Doberhuahua? Not quite.

But from that new Super Bowl ad to Hollywood boulevards and nearly to the White House, these pooches with cute names are pretty popular.

Hardly what Wally Conron expected — or ever wanted — back in the late 1980s when he first bred a pair of prize canines and called the result a Labradoodle.

“I’ve done a lot of damage,” Conron told The Associated Press this week by phone from his home in Australia. “I’ve created a lot of problems.”

“Marvelous thing? My foot,” he said. “There are a lot of unhealthy and abandoned dogs out there.”

No Labradoodles are entered in Saturday’s agility competition at the Westminster Kennel Club show, but for the first time in the event’s 138-year history, mixed breeds are welcome. Called “all-American” dogs by some and mutts by many, they’ll weave, jump and run through an obstacle course.

Only purebreds are allowed in the main event, though, and more than 2,800 of them are entered in the nation’s most prominent dog event. The rings open Monday and the best in show ribbon will be awarded Tuesday night at Madison Square Garden.

Conron isn’t from the show world. He was working as the puppy-breeding manager at the Royal Guide Dog Association of Australia when he tried to fulfill a request from a couple in Hawaii. She had vision problems, her husband was allergic, and they wanted a dog that would satisfy their needs.

After a lot of trial-and-error, Conron came up with a solution when he bred a standard poodle with a Labrador retriever. The mix was a personal triumph, yet not a success outside his lab.

“I was very, very careful of what I used, but nobody wanted Labrador crosses. I had a three-to-six-month waiting list, but everyone wanted purebreds,” the 85-year-old Conron recalled. “So I had to come up with a gimmick.”

“We came up with the name ‘Labradoodle,’” he said. “We told people we had a new dog and all of sudden, people wanted this wonder dog.”

Over the years, demand grew for Conron and other breeders. Labradoodles became a hot dog — Jennifer Aniston, Tiger Woods and Christie Brinkley are among their owners — and President Barack Obama’s family considered a Labradoodle before picking a Portuguese water dog as the First Pet.

“When I heard he was thinking about a Labradoodle, I wrote to him and said to make sure he checked its pedigree,” Conron said.

There’s the problem that troubles him.

Conron said there are far too many unscrupulous people eager to make a buck at a dog’s expense. Rather than check the history and science, he said “horrific” puppy mills are springing up and producing unstable dogs that go unwanted and eventually are euthanized.

“Instead of breeding out the problems, they’re breeding them in,” he said. “For every perfect one, you’re going to find a lot of crazy ones.”

That’s a concern Conron has echoed in the past, blaming himself for opening a “Pandora’s box” and creating a “Frankenstein.”

PETA appreciated that Conron is “speaking out to stop the loss of lives that his ‘invention’ has created.”

“Breeding ‘purebred’ or ‘designer’ dogs for exaggerated physical characteristics such as flat faces or sloping hips can cause them severe health problems. The kindest thing that anyone can do for dogs is to adopt them from a shelter — and make sure that they are spayed or neutered,” said Daphna Nachminovitch, senior vice president for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

Conron said he’s never owned a Labradoodle as a pet, and stopped breeding them when he retired 20 years ago.

Since then, he’s often witnessed the effects of his work.

“You can’t walk down the street without seeing a poodle cross of some sort. I just heard about someone who wanted to cross a poodle with a rottweiler. How could anyone do that?” he said.

“Not in my wildest dream did I imagine all of this would happen,” he said. “That’s a trend I started.”

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 698
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/26/2014 8:55:09 AM   
chatterbox24


Posts: 2182
Joined: 1/22/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1


quote:

ORIGINAL: altoonamaster
if you note the bible/adam and eve were cast out of the garden of eden/but no where does it say what happen next

quote:

ORIGINAL: altoonamaster
now years later a preacher on television says he knows what happen

quote:

ORIGINAL: altoonamaster
its better than the ark of the covetant

Yanno you can have more than one line in a reply don'tcha??

Anyways, if you follow the good book, the whole of humanity came from Adam and Eve.
Considering there was nobody else on the scene, it don't take a rocket scientist to work out what happened!
Which inherently implies that we all hail from an incestuous relationship from those two and their siblings.

So how can the bible also say that incest ist strictly verboten??
How hypocritical of it!!
And we are expected to believe and follow this shit - blindly??

I know I'm thick sometimes but I ain't that fuckin' stupid!!



Considering they meaning Adam and Eve were created, per the good book, not sexually reproduced, they would not be brother and sister, just as Adam was created in Gods image, Eve was created out of flesh to company that image, A body was created to house a spirit, now what is the DNA of a spirit? Anyone? I am stepping away now, I know where its going..........EXIT STAGE LEFT.

_____________________________

I am like a box of chocolates, you never know what variety you are going to get on any given day.

My crazy smells like jasmine, cloves and cat nip.

(in reply to freedomdwarf1)
Profile   Post #: 699
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/26/2014 9:04:43 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
I wonder why...if god made adam first, and eve out of his "rib"
we are all female to start with...and then half go "male"

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to chatterbox24)
Profile   Post #: 700
Page:   <<   < prev  33 34 [35] 36 37   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Evolution/Creation debate Page: <<   < prev  33 34 [35] 36 37   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.355