Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   WTF is wrong with people
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 271 of 457 (708268)
10-07-2013 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
10-02-2013 2:20 PM


Malamutes and mutations
It appears, and I could be wrong so please correct me if so, that she [Faith]is saying that a breeder works like natural selection does.
Yes and no. I'm sure you are aware that Darwin took the inspiration for Natural Selection from domestic breeding, right? So that sort of comparison goes back a ways. But I'm not just focusing on Natural Selection, my comparison is simply that the methods of nature, -- which include Natural Selection but also migration, geographic isolation and in fact anything that reproductively isolates a new population so that it inbreeds among itself -- are the same in that particular respect as what goes on in breeding, which is ALSO the reproductive isolation of a new population which leads to the development of a new type or breed etc. In ALL these cases new allele frequencies, and more often than not (and ultimately in any case) reduced genetic diversity as well, are the basis for a brand new trait picture or variety or race or "species" or breed.
While the initial premise between the two are very similar (founder effect) in that they start from a small group of animals who have either been forcefully separated, left the original home, or isolated themselves from the parent population in some way, that is where the comparison ends.
Perhaps so but it's all that's required to make the point I want to make about the similarities.
A breeder is attempting to stem the flow of evolution. If a mutation occurs that is undesirable to maintaining the breed, whether or not this mutation is beneficial, deleterious, or neutral, the breeder will refuse to allow this animal to breed meaning that asthetics, not survival to reproduce, is the deciding factor.
That may be a difference, but often a breeder will intentionally incorporate what he considers to be a mutation into the breed. But in any case the difference isn't important to my point. As I said, all the ways a new variety, race, breed or "species" are developed involve the inbreeding of a portion of a previous population with its new allele frequencies and usually reduced genetic diversity as well, and that's ALL that matters to my point.
In a hypothetical situation; imagine a breeder is working with pure bred Alaskan Malamutes. One of the puppies is born with a mutation affecting the undercoat of the dog, making it slightly more susceptible to cold. In the wild, this dog could survive or find a new area and breed with another animal in a warmer climate. Whereas, the human breeder has instantly determined that this trait is deleterious. In one instance, there is an opportunity to continue to increase the genetic diversity of dogs with the addition of a dog the size of a malamute, but with shorter hair for warmer climates. In the other, there is a physical barrier guaranteeing the mutation will not propagate.
So, what I would ask Faith is what is the barrier that stops mutations from accumulating, as long as the creature survives, in the wild? In other words, what is the barrier that makes it similar to breeding where asthetics chooses the beneficial mutations?
I'm not expecting it to be similar to breeding except in the sense I've described above.
But isn't the expectation that deleterious mutations will eventually be eliminated from the population? That's been expressed more than once here. Not right away if the individual with it survives and reproduces, but eventually as those individuals that inherit it don't do as well as the others in reproducing or under some circumstances even surviving to reproductive age. Or maybe they'll wander to warmer territory where they'll do just fine and develop a whole new strain of Malamutes. But again this isn't relevant to the point I'm trying to keep focused on.
Also, you are stating that genetic diversity is only decreased by the founder effect, and in a sense, you are correct.
ANY reduced number of individuals will tend to reduced genetic diversity, it doesn't have to be such a drastically low number as founder effect or bottleneck.
Initially, the genetic diversity is reduced because of the smaller population size. However, after the founder population begins to propagate (say twenty pure bred malamutes are released onto a tropical island with no other dogs), the mutations will begin to accumulate, at least the neutral (a majority of mutations) and the beneficial (the minority of mutations) will accumulate, while any malamute born with a deleterious (middle of the majority and minority) mutation will be removed from the population by its inability to survive and breed.
My guess would be that from your initial twenty isolated on this island you are going to get a new trait picture, that is a new race or breed of Malamutes within some number of generations, say twenty years or so and maybe fewer, simply from its allele frequencies which differ from the parent population. That is, this is what you will get if there is still an appreciable level of genetic diversity in Malamutes; if there is a great deal of homozygosity for the characteristic Malamute traits you may just continue to get recognizable Malamutes. I’d guess you’d see some changes though, something recognizably different to set this new population off from its parent population.
In other words you don’t need mutations for such changes in traits or phenotypes and although you are positing lots of mutational change I’d question how much of the change had to do with the mutations as opposed to the new allele frequencies. But of course evolutionists will attribute any change to mutations, because that is ASSUMED to be the cause, it’s an article of the ToE faith.
Say we leave these malamutes to propagate in a new type of enviroment for 1,000 years.
Just from the new allele frequencies you’ll see quite a bit of change a lot sooner than a thousand years, maybe in twenty, certainly in thirty.
With their hunting abilities being closely related to wolves and the pack mentality, we could expect them to survive off wildlife (as so many dogs did when settlers reached new lands), how many mutations could have had time to accumulate within that time? Without a mechanism to stop the number of mutations from growing, there is no telling which direction these purebred dogs could go. We could end up with dogs with no undercoat, that have shorter stature, or any of a myriad of possible options,
You could end up with those characteristics just from the allele frequencies peculiar to their population that’s built on twenty individuals.
because there is no longer a breeder controlling the process, just nature allowing what works just good enough to survive and breed. Breeders have specific requirements/Evolution has just good enough to survive and breed, that is an enormous difference between the two that you are forgetting along with your lack of a mechanism to stop mutations from accumulating.
First, again, I’m not focused on the QUALITY of the new races, varieties, species or breeds or whatever, I’m trying to make a point about how new characteristics arise and all of it comes down to population splits, and ultimately you get the most phenotypic change from the least genetic diversity because you force dramatic new allelic combinations that way. You can get the most dramatic new varieties just by dramatically reduced genetic diversity, and breeding ought to be a good clue to that, no matter what differences exist between breeding and the wild methods.
But just to ponder your speculations about mutations, first, beneficial mutations are very few and far between as affirmed by Percy and possibly others here, so you need a large population even to get one; then it has to get passed on which may not happen right away; then it has to be favored among competing alleles which is far from guaranteed, and meanwhile there are plenty of other mutations of the deleterious and "neutral" sort that go on cropping up unhelpfully, so why would I NEED a mechanism to stop mutations from accumulating? OR, this very scenario IS that mechanism.
THEN, if such a beneficial mutation should find itself among the individuals that go to make up a new daughter population, say some kind of geographic barrier occurs on that island and separates out a new subpopulation with even less genetic diversity, and if it occurs in that new population as a high-frequency allele, i.e. it occurs in greater proportion than it did in the former population, it may well contribute to the formation of a new trait picture that comes to characterize this new race or variety or "species."
But so much for the increased diversity it supposedly confers since it is now just another trait in a new constellation of traits in a pool of reduced genetic diversity ANYWAY, and if this trend of population splitting continues eventually it will reach the point beyond which further variation has become impossible because of depleted genetic diversity. So much for mutations doing anything to offset this trend.
And again, there is no reason whatever that you need any mutant alleles to bring about such phenotypic change; ALL you need is the new allele frequencies shuffling around the existing alleles, whether originally built in or mutant, it doesn't matter.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 10-02-2013 2:20 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by PaulK, posted 10-08-2013 1:58 AM Faith has replied
 Message 276 by PaulK, posted 10-08-2013 1:20 PM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 272 of 457 (708275)
10-08-2013 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by Faith
10-07-2013 9:13 PM


Re: Malamutes and mutations
quote:
I’m trying to make a point about how new characteristics arise and all of it comes down to population splits, and ultimately you get the most phenotypic change from the least genetic diversity because you force dramatic new allelic combinations that way. You can get the most dramatic new varieties just by dramatically reduced genetic diversity, and breeding ought to be a good clue to that, no matter what differences exist between breeding and the wild methods.
Maybe it is possible to maximise phenotypic change by reducing genetic diversity, but why should that be relevant ? There's no drive to maximise differences in phenotype, the only drive is to maximise fitness through selection
And one important difference between natural selection and breeders is that while breeders can choose to strongly select for recessive genes without any great difficulty, recessive alleles are much less affected by natural selection than dominant alleles. This is why genetic diseases are recessive.
quote:
But just to ponder your speculations about mutations, first, beneficial mutations are very few and far between as affirmed by Percy and possibly others here, so you need a large population even to get one; then it has to get passed on which may not happen right away; then it has to be favored among competing alleles which is far from guaranteed, and meanwhile there are plenty of other mutations of the deleterious and "neutral" sort that go on cropping up unhelpfully, so why would I NEED a mechanism to stop mutations from accumulating? OR, this very scenario IS that mechanism.
As I've pointed out again and again we don't need beneficial mutations to restore genetic diversity, neutral mutations are fine. Two distinct alleles are still distinct even if neither confers a selective advantage over the other. This should be obvious to anyone who has any understanding of the concept of "diversity".
The large population isn't an issue either - successful species will have large populations (that's what you miss by only looking at speciation).
So, we have a large population, a long period of time and neutral mutations ARE helpful. It seems that you DO need a mechanism to stop mutations from increasing genetic diversity - because in this scenario it WILL happen.
So we're back again to the hole in your argument that has been obvious from the beginning. You've spent years trying to patch it and you still haven't come up with a working answer. Isn't it time to retire the argument until you actually have an answer that isn't obviously false ?
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Faith, posted 10-07-2013 9:13 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Faith, posted 10-08-2013 2:31 PM PaulK has replied

  
saab93f
Member (Idle past 1394 days)
Posts: 265
From: Finland
Joined: 12-17-2009


(2)
Message 273 of 457 (708286)
10-08-2013 6:39 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by Faith
10-04-2013 1:09 AM


Re: What's wrong!
I admit I havent read every single post...ever in this forum but considering that there are several people who do science for living and they all disagree with you that it might be you who is wrong and not them?
I have also failed to find what kind of doctorate in life sciences you hold, what publications of yours I could read and where do you do your research.
I would not enter the fora of quantum physics since I have nothing meaninful to contribute - why do you and creationists in general think that re-hashing the Bible, distorting evidence and research and downright lying would do?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Faith, posted 10-04-2013 1:09 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-08-2013 10:10 AM saab93f has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(9)
Message 274 of 457 (708301)
10-08-2013 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by saab93f
10-08-2013 6:39 AM


Re: What's wrong!
I'll comment about these "Bible-Believer-True-Christians" (BBTC) in general rather than Faith in particular.
considering that there are several people who do science for living and they all disagree with you that it might be you who is wrong and not them?
First off: since they "know" that the Bible is God's word, then what it says, first and foremost, is what is true and everything that contradicts it must be wrong.
Secondly: they see science as leading people away from God's word, so the fact that scientists disagree with them goes right with the narrative.
I have also failed to find what kind of doctorate in life sciences you hold, what publications of yours I could read and where do you do your research.
Rather than vying for those inferior wordly qualifications, the BBTC has the superior Spirit of God working through them and revealing the true nature of our world to them.
I would not enter the fora of quantum physics since I have nothing meaninful to contribute - why do you and creationists in general think that re-hashing the Bible, distorting evidence and research and downright lying would do?
Yeah... what's wrong with them?
Its ignorance and arrogance. They're too dumb to realize they're wrong and too cocky to even begin to doubt themselves. It stems from the Bible-Believing part. They think they already have the answers and that they've been given to them by supernatural means. That, is what's wrong with them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by saab93f, posted 10-08-2013 6:39 AM saab93f has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Diomedes, posted 10-08-2013 1:08 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 277 by PaulK, posted 10-08-2013 1:22 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied
 Message 315 by saab93f, posted 10-10-2013 2:49 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 995
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


(2)
Message 275 of 457 (708325)
10-08-2013 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by New Cat's Eye
10-08-2013 10:10 AM


Re: What's wrong!
First off: since they "know" that the Bible is God's word, then what it says, first and foremost, is what is true and everything that contradicts it must be wrong.
Yet ironically, they tap dance around the verbiage of the Old Testament, trying to down play several of the extraordinarily vile passages from the Books of Leviticus, Exodus, Deuteronomy, etc and reconcile those barbaric tenets with our modern day society. Of all the things that surprise me the most about fundamentalists, is their ability to read the Old Testament, believe it literally and yet still try to pass off god as being 'merciful'. It's almost a form of Stockholm Syndrome.

"Our future lies not in our dogmatic past, but in our enlightened present"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-08-2013 10:10 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by ringo, posted 10-08-2013 1:41 PM Diomedes has not replied
 Message 280 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-08-2013 1:58 PM Diomedes has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 276 of 457 (708326)
10-08-2013 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by Faith
10-07-2013 9:13 PM


Creationists disagree
Mindspawn thinks that evidence of a bottleneck - more severe than that proposed for speciation - would be practically eliminated in 4500 years.
The scientists have not said anything about a lack of bottlenecks 4500 years ago. These are difficult to detect because over huge populations many mutations develop over 4500 years.
Message 727
You think that a million years wouldn't be enough.
And to be honest, I think that YECs in general would be far more likely to agree with mindspawn than you. How can you get many species from just one single pair without the bottleneck being obvious ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Faith, posted 10-07-2013 9:13 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Faith, posted 10-08-2013 1:55 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 277 of 457 (708327)
10-08-2013 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by New Cat's Eye
10-08-2013 10:10 AM


Re: What's wrong!
It's not the BIble that they worship, its their political and religious leaders. They're quite happy to distort the Bible to fit their doctrines. Biblical inerrancy REQUIRES it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-08-2013 10:10 AM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(2)
Message 278 of 457 (708330)
10-08-2013 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by Diomedes
10-08-2013 1:08 PM


Re: What's wrong!
Diomedes writes:
Of all the things that surprise me the most about fundamentalists, is their ability to read the Old Testament, believe it literally and yet still try to pass off god as being 'merciful'.
Fundie: "Slavery was fun in the Old Testament. It was like a ride at Disneyland."
Heathen: "But what about the Golden Rule? Would you want to be a slave in the Old Testament?"
Fundie: "Look! A dog with a poofy tail!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Diomedes, posted 10-08-2013 1:08 PM Diomedes has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 279 of 457 (708331)
10-08-2013 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by PaulK
10-08-2013 1:20 PM


Re: Creationists disagree about the geological time scale
Mindspawn apparently agrees with the geological time scale, which means that YECs would NOT agree with him.
How can you get many species from just one single pair without the bottleneck being obvious ?
I did explain that: Far greater heterozygosity the further back you go, so that even on the ark a single pair would exhibit enough heterozygosity to produce a great variety of offspring, which would also have higher heterozygosity than we see today. A bottleneck today usually produces a huge amount of homozygosity in the genome. Today's condition is due to the reduction of genetic diversity down the centuries caused by the many population splits that produced the many subspecies.
Human beings today have been found to have 6.7% heterozygosity, which is probably similar to that of the animals that descended from those on the ark. The idea is that it would have been more on the ark and more than that at the Creation. No way to estimate that I know of but a guess might be 15% on the ark and 50 to 80% at the Creation. I'm guessing not 100% because I think the most permanent characteristics of each Species would have to be homozygous.
If today's percentage produces all the variety we see today, 15% on the ark could easily have produced all the variety since then.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by PaulK, posted 10-08-2013 1:20 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by PaulK, posted 10-08-2013 2:28 PM Faith has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 280 of 457 (708332)
10-08-2013 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by Diomedes
10-08-2013 1:08 PM


Re: What's wrong!
Yet ironically, they tap dance around the verbiage of the Old Testament
Yeah... man, they're really fucked up!
I love it how they take something completely natural like the evolution of animals and argue that it must have a supernatural explanation.
But then they take something completely supernatural like God causing a global flood and argue that it must have a natural explanation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Diomedes, posted 10-08-2013 1:08 PM Diomedes has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 281 of 457 (708335)
10-08-2013 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by Faith
10-08-2013 1:55 PM


Re: Creationists disagree about the geological time scale (But not here!)
quote:
Mindspawn apparently agrees with the geological time scale, which means that YECs would NOT agree with him.
LOL! Mindspawn says that the Triassic began 4,500 years ago !
What is more, even if you were right it would still be irrelevant to the point I was making.
quote:
I did explain that: Far greater heterozygosity the further back you go
Want to explain how you can have MORE alleles than Mindspawn is assuming (two different alleles per individual per species) ?
quote:
Human beings today have been found to have 6.7% heterozygosity, which is probably similar to that of the animals that descended from those on the ark.
But humans also have genes with many more than the 10 alleles allowed by the usual interpretation of the Ark story.
Obviously heterozygosity is far from the whole story.
But I invite you to investigate genetics and discover if your idea is really an adequate explanation. I have good reason to think that you will find that it is not.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Faith, posted 10-08-2013 1:55 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Faith, posted 10-08-2013 2:39 PM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 282 of 457 (708336)
10-08-2013 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by PaulK
10-08-2013 1:58 AM


Re: Malamutes and mutations
I’m trying to make a point about how new characteristics arise and all of it comes down to population splits, and ultimately you get the most phenotypic change from the least genetic diversity because you force dramatic new allelic combinations that way. You can get the most dramatic new varieties just by dramatically reduced genetic diversity, and breeding ought to be a good clue to that, no matter what differences exist between breeding and the wild methods.
Maybe it is possible to maximise phenotypic change by reducing genetic diversity, but why should that be relevant ? There's no drive to maximise differences in phenotype, the only drive is to maximise fitness through selection
I am not claiming there's a natural drive in this direction, but it is a very common occurrence nevertheless. I emphasize it because it is best for demonstrating the trend to reduced genetic diversity which is more obvious in these situations. Sometimes the new population isn't particularly small so all the same alleles are present as in the former population and you get new phenotypes from the new allele frequencies and there is no obvious trend to reduced genetic diversity. There are two "species" of wildebeest, one called the Blue Wildebeest, and although I don't know their genetic condition it's possible it was a very large number that migrated to form the Blue type or vice versa, in which case both populations would have evolved new traits from their new allele frequencies but maintained fairly high gen. diversity. One would exhibit less genetic diversity from the other population if it was formed from a small number. The populations founded on large numbers aren't evolving to genetic depletion, but those founded on smaller numbers are, and as I said this is a very common situation, probably the most common.
And one important difference between natural selection and breeders is that while breeders can choose to strongly select for recessive genes without any great difficulty, recessive alleles are much less affected by natural selection than dominant alleles. This is why genetic diseases are recessive.
But of course they do show up because if they are passed on they do eventually pair. But again I'm only interested in the situation involving new phenotypes developing from reduced numbers because of the reduced genetic diversity which ultimately leads to inability to evolve further. Often at the point so wishfully called "Speciation" too.
But just to ponder your speculations about mutations, first, beneficial mutations are very few and far between as affirmed by Percy and possibly others here, so you need a large population even to get one; then it has to get passed on which may not happen right away; then it has to be favored among competing alleles which is far from guaranteed, and meanwhile there are plenty of other mutations of the deleterious and "neutral" sort that go on cropping up unhelpfully, so why would I NEED a mechanism to stop mutations from accumulating? OR, this very scenario IS that mechanism.
As I've pointed out again and again we don't need beneficial mutations to restore genetic diversity, neutral mutations are fine. Two distinct alleles are still distinct even if neither confers a selective advantage over the other. This should be obvious to anyone who has any understanding of the concept of "diversity".
The problem with "neutral" alleles is that they alter another allele that may have been perfectly functional. You are all so mutation-happy you assume if you aren't getting a disease-producing mutation all is well. And for the most part the neutral changes don't change the function of the allele either as I understand it. But all of them destroy SOMETHING that was already there, and since enormous variety is quite possible just from the existing alleles by shuffling their frequencies through population splits, you aren't getting any real improvement in diversity by substituting something else for them. You THINK you are because the ToE SAYS you must, but there is no evidence for this. The next changes in those same sequences are far more likely just to destroy the allele altogether and make Junk of it rather than produce something viable.
The large population isn't an issue either - successful species will have large populations (that's what you miss by only looking at speciation).
I'm trying to make a point about how changes come about and that includes all kinds of varieties, not just speciation. You can get a very large population from a totally genetically depleted creature such as the elephant seal too. It shows the animal is healthy enough, or "successful" as you put it, but it also has no ability to vary beyond its current genetic condition, so that it is at the end of evolution for its line of variation. That's "success" in one sense, but not in the sense that it gives you any kind of platform for further evolution, just the opposite.
So, we have a large population, a long period of time and neutral mutations ARE helpful. It seems that you DO need a mechanism to stop mutations from increasing genetic diversity - because in this scenario it WILL happen.
As soon as you get any kind of Selection, whether Natural Selection or geographic isolation or migration or so on, you are going to see the supposedly increased diversity start to cut down as particular traits are selected for the new variety. This can happen even WITHIN a population if there is some kind of reproductive selection going on among individuals. The evolving population will lose the alleles that compete with its own traits, thus reducing its genetic diversity.
So we're back again to the hole in your argument that has been obvious from the beginning. You've spent years trying to patch it and you still haven't come up with a working answer. Isn't it time to retire the argument until you actually have an answer that isn't obviously false ?
None of it's false and I think I get it said better over time, and better many times in this thread too. The telling situation IS when you get a new population from small numbers. That's when it's obvious that mutations make no difference whatever, assuming they are involved at all of course; they either underlie the traits of the new population or they don't figure in the new population at all, and the new population has reduced genetic diversity even with whatever mutations there might be. If you are expecting mutations to come along THEN of course, you're going to be waiting a long long time.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by PaulK, posted 10-08-2013 1:58 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by PaulK, posted 10-08-2013 3:09 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 283 of 457 (708337)
10-08-2013 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by PaulK
10-08-2013 2:28 PM


Re: Creationists disagree about the geological time scale
Soon as I see a word like "Triassic" in a supposed creationist's post I don't bother to read it.
But humans also have genes with many more than the 10 alleles allowed by the usual interpretation of the Ark story.
Yes, this is true and something I think about from time to time. We'll have an answer for you eventually.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by PaulK, posted 10-08-2013 2:28 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Tangle, posted 10-08-2013 2:44 PM Faith has replied
 Message 288 by PaulK, posted 10-08-2013 3:22 PM Faith has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 284 of 457 (708338)
10-08-2013 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by Faith
10-08-2013 2:39 PM


Re: Creationists disagree about the geological time scale (But not here!)
Faith writes:
We'll have an answer for you eventually.
Yes, of course you will, fiction only requires imagination.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Faith, posted 10-08-2013 2:39 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Faith, posted 10-08-2013 2:45 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 285 of 457 (708339)
10-08-2013 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by Tangle
10-08-2013 2:44 PM


Re: Creationists disagree about the geological time scale (But not here!)
Think you're a tad confused there. It's evolution that invents stuff out of imagination.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Tangle, posted 10-08-2013 2:44 PM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-08-2013 3:07 PM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024