Biblical Creationism Requires Evolution

Try ABC.net.au: Page not Found

quote:

---

Belyaev's great insight was to suspect that the key factor was not size or reproduction, but behaviour. Tameness, he reasoned, was the single trait most likely to determine how well an animal adapted to living with humans. And because behaviour is influenced by an animal's neurochemistry, then selecting for tameness would over generations alter the balance of the bodys hormones and neurotransmitters. This in turn could lead to a host of other seemingly unrelated consequences.

---

and Domestication of the dog - Wikipedia

quote:

---

The Promise of Food/Self Domestication: Early wolves would, as scavengers, be attracted to the bones and refuse dumps of human campsites. Dr. Raymond Coppinger of Hampshire College, Massachusetts, argues that those wolves that were more successful at interacting with humans would pass these traits onto their offspring, eventually creating wolves with a greater propensity to be domesticated. Coppinger believes that a behavioral characteristic called "flight distance" was crucial to the transformation from wild wolf to the ancestors of the modern dog. It represents how close an animal will allow humans (or anything else it perceives as dangerous) to get before it runs away.

---

Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

excellentthat was the study and points i was trying to address.thanks razd

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

well saidI'm just pointing out that these behavior choices are a form of selective breeding, that can change the entire form quite quickly.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

OKAYEveryone consider this:Here, I will present two mechanisms for genetic change, both which seem to be relevant to your discussions.1. Chromosomes are combined in certain ways; 23 total chromosome pairs means a lot of different genomes can exist. If no chromosome is to change(almost impossible) then, certain kinds of chromosomes would be passed down rather than some others, because of selective pressures and probability. Other kinds would be in the male or female's reproductive cells during their lives, but not combine to construct a genome, since again, these kinds of chromosomes would not be present in the construction of a genome.Eventually, consider this: it is almost certain that chromosomes would continue to be lost; as by the mechanism I described just above. If there is to be no changing in the kinds of chromosomes (as assumed just above) then, since the number of kinds of chromosomes which would compose the genome would likely go down, there would be an imbreeding effect which would cause the downfall of the species, eventually.This would be because 1. the species would become less able to adapt, of course, since less genetic variation allows for a lower number of different kinds of genotypes which can exist in a species, which allows for a less varied group of environments which the species can adapt to. Also, 2. with more and more genetic similarity between two parents, more liklihood for recessive traits developes; and since recessive traits are mostly bad, the overall health of the species would likely go down.2. The second mechanism for evolutionary transition is mutation. This destroys the precise likliness of a chromosome, and destoys the above described effect.Even though mutation only allows for change in the genetics of a species to happen at a very slow rate, it is fast enough to destroy the above effect of imbreeding.You see?

wow..yeah i do see. cool i always figured inbreeding would just lead to ..extinction/idiocracy, but as you point out, over time, the variation would be enough that the slowly cancelled effects wouldn't be near as important in latter times as it is in the earlier, but that in the earlier a species could still survive and eventually be quite diverse.cool thats just cool i did interpret that right? right?if yes, then in effect, one man, and one woman, could become nations of men and wemon.Edited by tesla, : last sentence added.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Actually, no; variation would not become greater over time, necessarily, nor would this have to be significant; its just that the variation would not decrease since even though chromosomes are constantly being lost(since not all chromosomes, of course, are passed down), mutation makes variation happen. Therefore, there would be two opposing forces of increasing variation verses decreasing variation.And, the average genetic likliness of the species would almost certainly change, over time, unless it is unusually stable. With nearly inevitable environmental change and sexual selection(in some species) and random change which has any level of significance, but still causes change in the average genetic likliness of a species, this would happen. Again, the men and women would almost certainly become of different genetic character; which means they wouldnt really be able to avoid inbreeding, they would just have to evolve.And, anyways, mutation is never fast enough to allow two closely-enough related members of a species to reproduce and not produce a deformed infant, such as a brother and sister, or mother-son or father-daughter(which by the way is freaking disgusting anyways, god must be a freaking sicko.....); though, relationships such as these would have to happen according to genesis. Edited by TheNaturalist, : are you that fucking nosy? go fuck yourself.

why not? i mean, if a Chinese man has a child with a Irish woman, the child is quite diverse isn't it?and a black man and white woman, isn't the child more diverse?and over time, wouldn't the diversity expand?isn't that the whole thesis of evolution, the changes and diversity over time? well right about the according to Genesis.but in theory, if a man and woman had 6 children, and the children and mother and father all had more children, some would be defective, some would be "about" normal. then the cousins mate, and the diversity grows, until the tree is far enough down the genetics work.like, if i trace my family tree father side..i can find a common ancestor on my mothers side, but there so many generations removed, its irrelevant.whats your thoughts on this theory?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Not enough Changes in the average genetics of a species yes; but not the average difference between an individual in the species and another No; there would be too much genetic similarity between any of these members soon

by the data I've viewed in the world as a whole, it would appear to me your conclusions are missing a variable in the original thesis of the balance.perhaps the mutations can work for or against the other variables.for me, your conclusions i cannot accept at heart, something is missing.ill have to conclude no conclusion.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

why?

life is to diverse. and evolution isn't supported.there's tons of breeds of dogs, and apparently one initial start.if only one man and one woman were alive, via inbreeding, its logical to me that man would survive. and eventually find diversity through evolution by exposure to different chemicals and minerals in different environments, as environments change.overall, looking at evolution, there's many different things that can cause mutation. and to believe something would mutate only one way just doesn't seem logical.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

correct, and i understand; but, inbreeding's negative effects would have to occur before so much variation could happen.

unless the environment is understood, i cannot accept that absolutely.too many possible variables.however, it is more probable that the first man, and first woman, did not have identical DNA.but with identical DNA's you may be on to some truth. and i believe it should be further explored.Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

however, it is more probable that the first man, and first woman, did not have identical DNA.there was no "first man" or "first woman"; a species existed to change into the human species, with time

thats just a theory.a guess is still a guess. with no conclusion.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides