The story of Bones and Dogs and Humans

Nope. Try again, this time with understanding of what is actually written. Nope. Try again, this time with understanding of what is actually written. Nope. Try again, this time with understanding of what is actually written. Except that the only problem is your misunderstanding (or your intentional misrepresentation). Attempts at ad hominum attacks only show the person making them has a weak argument that is not supported by facts and so chooses to attack the messenger instead of the message. Sad and pathetic. Says the person intentionally continuing to misrepresent what was actually written.By the way, you might be interested (probably not) in something called the founder effect:

quote:

---

In population genetics, the founder effect is the loss of genetic variation that occurs when a new population is established by a very small number of individuals from a larger population. It was first fully outlined by Ernst Mayr in 1942,[1] using existing theoretical work by those such as Sewall Wright.[2] As a result of the loss of genetic variation, the new population may be distinctively different, both genotypically and phenotypically, from the parent population from which it is derived. In extreme cases, the founder effect is thought to lead to the speciation and subsequent evolution of new species.

​

Simple illustration of founder effect: The original population is on the left with three possible founder populations on the right.

​

In the figure shown, the original population has nearly equal numbers of blue and red individuals. The three smaller founder populations show that one or the other color may predominate (founder effect), due to random sampling of the original population. A population bottleneck may also cause a founder effect, though it is not strictly a new population.

​

The founder effect occurs when a small group of migrants that is not genetically representative of the population from which they came establish in a new area.[3][4] In addition to founder effects, the new population is often a very small population, so shows increased sensitivity to genetic drift, an increase in inbreeding, and relatively low genetic variation. This can be observed in the limited gene pools of Icelanders, Parsis, Ashkenazi Jews, Faroe Islanders, Easter Islanders, and those native to Pitcairn Island. Another example is the remarkably high deaf population of Martha's Vineyard, which resulted in the development of Martha's Vineyard Sign Language.

---

And it can be readily observed in island populations of species ... such as the species on the Galapagos Islands ...Curiously I always enjoy taking the opportunity of creationist ignorance and desperate denial to educate them (or at least those who read the posts that are willing to learn) and to help them understand (if they want to) the evolutionary mechanisms.What we have with dog breeds is not inbreeding per se (some cross-breeding is done to alleviate effects of inbreeding or to develop new breeds), but an artificial selection similar to what occurs naturally with founder effect populations and which does result in evolutionary change in the population.btw -- you seem to equate evolutionary change with speciation, whether through misunderstanding or intentionally (hyperbole exaggeration logical fallacy), when speciation is actually a rather rare occurrence in the general generation to generation changes of the breeding populations. See anagenesis -- all species undergo anagenesis (it is observed, documented, fact) ... even when cladogenesis occurs each daughter population is undergoing anagenesis. You are either lying or incapable of understanding ... for one of several reasons: see Five types of people that don't understand how evolution works3, 4 or 5 ... take your pick.Enjoy

The purpose of the dogs is to show the variation in phenotypes that can be derived through selection, whether artificial or natural. Natural selection would not (normally) develop all the phenotypes shown by dogs, but logically could have produced any one of them over time. Thus dogs (or cats or cows or sheep or any other domestic breed) give us an idea of the limits of variation within a species while still remaining a species (able to interbreed if given the opportunity).This "limitation boundary" then applies to all aspects of the phenotype ... but when you are applying that metric to a set of skeletons, then yes you should only look at the skeletons of the dogs. I consider that implicit in the argument. Curiously those statements were done by "an anatomist expert in that field" ...Enjoy

Razz, does your inbreeding creat a new species ?If so, then it confirms that inbreeding human populations can creat a new species of humans that is not human but a new KInd ? This confirming that evolution is a racist doctrine.If you deny inbreeding creates a new species, then remove that silly false dog chart that suggests inbred dogs create a new Kind or species.And enough stupid excuses that say this definition or your new definition excuses you and your dogs.

Evasive, elusive, erratic, errant, evolutionists.... can not answer questions because their theory or god is evasive elusive, erratic, and errant.

Pot, meet kettle!You have refused to answer the evidence I posted several times disproving the flood at your "exact" date.And this is just one of the many posts here you have refused to answer.So get off your high horse unicorn.

Not by itself. Even if so it would not create a new species of humans that is not human. Define "KInd" and then we can discuss this issue. A rather silly and easily falsified claim that you have not demonstrated on your thread for that purpose, nor defended it against the various examples that show otherwise. Repeating a claim that has been shown to be false is intentionally repeating a falsehood. That is lying. Stop lying Davidjay.Only you are seeing this -- or pretending to. Not by itself. Except that it shows no such thing. It shows the development of varieties. Any species can (and often does) have a number of varieties, but they are all one species and can still interbreed. In humans we call the various varieties "races" ... and as you know all human races can interbreed. This forms hybrids not new species.Only you have trouble seeing this -- or pretending to. Your inability, or refusal, or failure to understand what the dogs actually show, and how this relates to actual evolution is not my problem.Enjoy

Talk about a dumb response... Evasive answer and answers, Razz superceeds all other evolutionists in saying nothing and never answering.... What a gutless whimpy reply.. She doesnt say what else is injected into their miracle species creation, just NOT BY ITSELF.....Is that scientific NO, Is that comprehensible NO... Is that an answer NO.Dumber than dumb.Maybe evolutionists want to throw in their god of selection, who knows Razz doesn;t say what else is needed to make inbreeding jump the gap and actually start producing a new species.But insanely for a rational person says, she can not define a species... or KIND so is unable to answer further.IE. Dumb evolutionists have nothing but semantics and no science behind their dumb theory. All they have is name changes, literary classifications, and double speak, and artists imaginations.Yes, evolutionists have great GREAT problems with their lack of evidence and lack of answers. Yet always try to blame those that question them for not understanding their dog pics, and their inbreeding.Inbreeding does not creat new species or KINDS. Its a BIG LIE of evolution and evolutionists.Edited by Davidjay, : No reason given.

That's a lot of nonsense with nothing of value to reply to. You seem very desperate to nullify the objective empirical evidence and the information it shows. This is typical cognitive dissonance behavior. See Message 1 for more.Your false beliefs are interfering with your ability to learn, pathetic and sad.Enjoy

Scientific sounding jargon doesnt cover up or excuse your lack of straight forward answers.Inbreeding does not produce new kinds...... no matter how long you breed your dogs together.Double speak does not hide, this obvious truth.My belief is correct scientifically and you know it, or should know it, if you studied any biology at all. Your denials show desperation in your lost cause. Inbreeding is not a proof of evolution, but a ploy of evolutionist to con their congregations into their false belief system.

Your question have been answered, you just reject the answers because your cognitive dissonance is strong. So you resort to attacking the messengers.And you keep coming back for more, because you want to be right, and you can't understand why everyone else rejects your opinions and falsified beliefs and assertions.Enjoy

Please, everyone, keep the focus on the topic and not on the people you're discussing with. This is the only warning I'll give before I begin issuing suspensions.