Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests Creationism vs Evolution

Taxed2death: Yes I am aware of Mendel's work with flowers and punnet squares as I selectively breed reptiles for different traits. But the fact is that any animal that progressively shows a change of traits which over time(many generations) leads to an adaption that will preserve the life of the animal,that animal has evolved. It is a little bit of a stretch. And I don't think that there was very many breeders of animals that were doing genetics experiments along the line of Mendel. Most selective breeding has happened in the last few hundred years. So I really don't think that all the different types of animals could come about from a single pair. How long through selective breeding do you think you think it would take to get a 2 lb. dog from a dog that started out at 90-100 lb.? Even with extremely aggressive selective breeding program it would take 50-100 generations to get that dog to make a change that drastic. And mind you that is just one type of dog. My main point in this argument is that there is not enough time in 4400 years to get that many different types of animals from one pair. Or seven for that matter. I used a dog as a example but this works with any animal.
Selective breeding can only get you so far.

Oh one other thing if you breed animals within the same bloodline to each other (which would have had to have happened) after 2-3 generations they will start showing deformations and will be prone to more health problems. Just like in humans. That is why breeders have breeding stock from different bloodlines. I have seen it happen in reptiles, birds, and cats, and have heard of this problem with dogs and other species.

ASSVT:

I am still doing some research on your last post, but how does this sound:

Mankind/animals would not have had the myriad of genetic mistakes now present on our DNA. In opposition to what evolution teaches, mutations or mistakes on DNA do not lead to better and improved humans/animals. These mistakes cause hundreds of debilitating illnesses and birth defects. The reason all of us are not born with enormous numbers of medical problems is because our genes are a combination of the characteristics of both our parents. It is only when both parents have the same mistake in their genes that their children manifest the resulting genetic problem.

Furthermore, these genetic mistakes accumulate and increase with time. In other words, the information on our DNA gets more garbled - it never increases in clarity. Since mistakes are accumulating on DNA, it is logical to assume that as we go back in time there would be less mistakes. The reason brothers and sisters cannot marry today (except in Louisiana and Mississippi, of course ) is because they are likely to have similar DNA errors leading to children with birth defects.

You should find this interesting.
"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution...is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered
evolution; individual organisms don't evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution maybe slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population ( such as those determining blood types) to successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, dandelions."
-Douglass J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology
Sinauer Assoc. 1986
"Infact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.
Helena Curtis and N.Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed.
Worth Pub. pg.974 1989

Edit: Oh by the way Gregor Mendel was also using artificial fertilizations for his experiments. Besides anyone who had high school biology class would have studied Mendel and his work.

ASSVT... I agree whole heartedly... selective breeding can only get you so far.. (sorry about the spelling on mendel.. you knew him though.. great.. sorry again... there is no process known to us, that takes an animal from an existing state, and transforms that animal. A dog will never grossly change its form, or figure, in an infinite amount of time. The genetics of it is simply impossible. You can mutate "till the cows come home", and you will have a dead dog, but not a better, or more complex dog.
I tried to post this the other day, but I used square brackets and it didnt post.. ohwell.. here goes again

Lets play the evolution game... we put a bunch of letters into a hat and randomly pull them out millions of times, until we have a genetic code that somehow gives this animal a survival advantage... so we pull out "Grossly oversimplified" the letters

I NEED A LONGER TAIL

representing the genetic code for a longer tail.. if that were possible..
now.. we have a perfect evolutionary example right. I mean, proof for evolution given enough time. The problem is, I NEED A LONGER TAIL doesn't mean anything to a german person, or a russian, chinese, japanese, korean, israeli, mexican, or any other person that does not have the PRE EXISTING LANGUAGE (in this case english) to interpret the genetic change. This analogy is excellently suitted for the evolutionary arguement. At first glance, its a proof. Upon study, we find that it falls short. Without the language for interpretation existing before we get the message, it is totally useless.

I should have included this above..
an excellent point ASSVT... you get deformation, and generally bad things, when you breed from the same bloodline.. WHY?? Because over time, the genetic code in these animals, after trillions of reproductions gets mistakes... these mistakes.. say for example something to do with no hair growth will.. (when the offspring of parents that both have this problem as a dominent characteristic) pass that on to their children, and from then on, those kids will never have hair growth again, until an outside source, from a different bloodline is used. Now.. I do not know the exact numbers.. but what is a dogs average lifespan.. 15 years or so... but he breeds maybe every five.. so you could have 20 generations of dogs per century.. (maybe more, but does that sound reasonable)... if that is the case, then we can have over 50 centuries since the approx date of the flood... 50X20.. 1000 generations of dogs.. in each dog, how often are the cells duplicated, and the information halved?? Even SUPER conservativly maybe 1 trillion.. maybe.. for arguement sake lets say 100 times... 100 times 1000 generations.. that is 100000 copying times... room enough for error to creep in, however, lets work backwords, and say that 100000 times ago... the information in that specific animal "X" would have had atleast 99,999 less copies.. less chance of error.. so the closer you work back to an original kind.. the less error.. there fore... you can have breeding along the same bloodlines.. for a limited time...
bible application..
God creates adam and eve, they have kids, who marry each other.. no problems.. still very little room for mutation, and genetic errors creeping in through copying.. you get a few thousand years in... Moses's time, and God gives the people a law.. saying no inbreeding... don't marry your sister, brother, cousin etc (you know what I mean).. logical right, he knows the effects of the mutations are adding up!!!

I think I see what you are getting at. Well I think it is more Darwinian than that. I will use giraffes as an example they progressively got longer necks due to the fact that the ones with longer necks could reach the food on the higher branches. So when one with shorter neck can't get food it will die. But the ones that can reach the food (with longer necks) they live and reproduce passing on the favorable trait of a longer neck, which inturn passes into the offspring. Now the change isn't going to be to dramatic in 1-2 generations, when you wait 100's of generation you end up with current very long necked giraffes. Hope this makes sense.
But it is based on Darwins findings.

Another quick answer.. One major problem in a lot of arguements in the understanding of the words being used.. First off....
there is a common misunderstanding that micro, and mcaro evolution have anything in common. They are completely seperate, and vastly different.
Creationists frequently say we beleive in micro evolution, (This is true, however, Microevolution is improperly named.. ) There is no evolution in microevolution.. it is simple breeding, and genetics that is micro evolution... it should be reffered to as natural selection. This is a great thing! it also has nothing to do with evolution.

Macro evolution is the speculative idea that natural selection, somehow working over huge time spans, and mutation, and errors, somehow lead to completely new forms of animals..

I would like to propose that if anyone has a problem with the above, please lets discuss it... but.. and this is a but... can we please refrain from using micro evolution, as a word that somehow implies any help to macro evolution. (I do not feal backed into a corner, or beat up) I just wanted to clarify the understanding of the terms we are using. Perhaps if anyone disagrees they can post their definition, for the rest of us to agree with?!?

Cheers!! and if we don't talk till the end of the weekend, make it a good one!

Alright. First off I'd like to say I'm pretty amazed, and pleased, that after all this discussion of one of the most explosive topics
imaginable. Everyone has remained pretty respectfull of each other over all!! Impressive I think, no matter your origin!

I would just like to ask one more question of the creationists in my last post on this topic if I may. I personally can't offer anything I believe YOU would accept as undeniable proof of evolution. I'm okay with that, btw.

To cut to the chase here. I'm curious if there is any sort of "discovery" at all you can think of, that would change your minds? For instance, I'm sure I would personally be very responsive to actually SEEING for myself, [not just reading, or taking someone's word.] the actual "parting" of a sea, or a spontaeneously combusting bush that spoke to me. Or people turning into pillars of salt. Etc... I'm really being very serious here I promise.

Would the undisputed existance of extra-terrestrial life do it? For instance an actual craft, or aliens, or both together in the form of a visit? [I don't mean reports of "someone saw a flying...today] I mean here they are/it is for ALL to see. Or would there be some "interpretation" of a passage someplace that would "make room" for this and put things "right" again? Please be honest, take your time. I'm just curious what "evidence" would suffice, if any.

Makes great sense.. the only problem is...
and I must have lent my article out to someone...

from memory here we go... okay. the giraffe starts out with a short neck.. can't reach tall trees for food.. okay... somehow selective breeding favours the longer necked giraffes.. so in a few generations the information for shorter necks is gone, and the longer ones are there.. excellent.. that is going to get you a few inches tops...
if you continue with your growing neck idea... you need a special type of heart, a heart that is different than that of a short necked giraffe. It needs to be able to pump blood up an extra lets say 4 feet.... Also, a giraffe drinks water by tipping its neck/head forward, and down to the water... this will not work with a normal neck.. You need special valves through out your neck, that would allow you to lower your head, and not have your heart pump with the same amount of force, because it would blow your head up! Secondly...
The short necked, and short+ necked giraffe could breath fine, but the + 4 foot neck giraffe, unless his lungs, and his airways and passages are modified with special lubricant releasing "machines" would get so severly wind burned that he would die! These are just two of the problems with the neck growth theory. I am talking however about two different types of growth.. the growth that I first talked about is in the genetic code, it is there, and just not in every one. So natural selection will get ride of the shorter necked giraffe and leave you with the SLIGHTLY longer neck. However, then somehow.. using a yet unknown method, the giraffe's genetic code for a neck changes, but so does their heart, and their lungs, and their airways, all at the same time, to give this animal its survival advantage. This.. according to darwin himself... dissproves his theory... he states that if two things had to simultaniously evolve, to give something an advantage, then it can't be!