Jump to content


Photo

Noah's Ark And Biodiversity


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
34 replies to this topic

#21 Seek123

Seek123

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 62 posts
  • Interests:God<br />Music (I play piano, violin, guitar, and bass guitar)<br />Nature and camping (I have achieved my Eagle Scout Rank)<br />Reading<br />Friends<br />Biology<br />Much much more...
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Northwest Indiana

Posted 06 February 2011 - 11:52 PM

God did fill the stomachs of the lions so Danial would not be eaten, right? So why not the Ark as well?

View Post


This is plausable. I was only curious to see if there might be an explanation that an evo might accept.

#22 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 07 February 2011 - 07:13 AM

I’ve heard this suggestion before, but what I don’t understand is how the ability to adapt could have been lost over time. We still see major changes in climate and habitat happening all over the world. Adaptation does occur, but it happens slowly and usually the changes are relatively minor. That’s why so many animals are extinct or endangered as a result of human activities. So what changed?

View Post


This is really rather simple to explain. We all believe that dogs came from wolves. So imagine yourself a breeder. You start with two healthy wolves and you start applying selection. Along the way, you get lot's of variety. And after awhile you get chihuahuas. This is observable and repeatable science.

Now a question for you. Which is more adaptable? The original two wolves or the evolved chihuahuas?

The answer is rather obvious. There is a direction in evolution and it is not the direction of bacteria to man. It is the direction of Adam and Eve to modern humans. We are the chihuahuas. We are allergic to just about everything today, we have over 3000 known genetic diseases. An I could go on.

Supposedly 25% of all known species are near extinction today. And if the habitat changes, good bye species. But why? Why can't they adapt. Well the answer is simple. Why can't the chihuahuas adapt to the cold wild environment of the Northwest? They would be extinct in no time if we took them out of their cumfy pocketbook totes. The answer is that they have lost the genetic capacity to adapt. This is the true direction of evolution.

When the flood happened, there had been just ten generations from A&E to Noah. Little genetic deterioration in this time. People lived 900+years. Now with modern medicine we are working our way back to 80's. After the flood the age of man dropped dramatically.

The fact is that every species is headed towards extinction eventually. Dr. John Sanford has done alot of work on this.

#23 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 07 February 2011 - 07:57 AM

This is plausable.  I was only curious to see if there might be an explanation that an evo might accept.

View Post


Evos will only accept things that are natural, you don't have to deny the supernatural to appease them. If they think it's a cop out, so be it.

Trying to go to their level of requirement is actually a sin. Why? Because to do so you deny the power of God.

2tim 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

They prefer the creature over the creator.

rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

They are also intellectual Pharisees. Deeming their own thoughts as god. Making their reasoning, logic, and free thought more wise than the written word of God. Not realizing that what a person claims is of God also becomes part of their worship. So they basically worship their own thoughts.

#24 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 07 February 2011 - 08:33 AM

Evos will only accept things that are natural, you don't have to deny the supernatural to appease them. If they think it's a cop out, so be it.

Trying to go to their level of requirement is actually a sin. Why? Because to do so you deny the power of God.

2tim 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

They prefer the creature over the creator.

rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

They are also intellectual Pharisees. Deeming their own thoughts as god. Making their reasoning, logic, and free thought more wise than the written word of God. Not realizing that what a person claims is of God also becomes part of their worship. So they basically worship their own thoughts.

View Post

Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him. Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his. Proverbs 26:4-5

The futility of trying to impart wisdom to a fool is the basis of Proverbs 26:4-5 which tell us how to answer a fool. These seemingly contradictory verses are actually a common form of parallelism found in the Old Testament, where one idea builds upon another. Verse 4 warns against arguing with a fool on his own terms, lest we stoop to his level and become as foolish as he is. Because he despises wisdom and correction, the fool will not listen to wise reason and will try to draw us into his type of argument, whether it is by using deceit, scoffing at our wisdom, or becoming angry and abusive. If we allow him to draw us into this type of discourse, we are answering him “according to his folly” in the sense of becoming like him.

The phrase “according to his folly” in verse 5, on the other hand, tells us that there are times when a fool has to be addressed so that his foolishness will not go unchallenged. In this sense answering him according to his folly means to expose the foolishness of his words, rebuking him on the basis of his folly so he will see the idiocy of his words and reasoning. Our “answer” in this case is to be one of reproof, showing him the truth so he might see the foolishness of his words in the light of reason. Even though he will most likely despise and reject the wisdom offered to him, we are to make the attempt, both for the sake of the truth which is always to be declared, and the sake of those listening, that they may see the difference between wisdom and folly and be instructed.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Proverbs-26-4-5.html

#25 Seek123

Seek123

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 62 posts
  • Interests:God<br />Music (I play piano, violin, guitar, and bass guitar)<br />Nature and camping (I have achieved my Eagle Scout Rank)<br />Reading<br />Friends<br />Biology<br />Much much more...
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Northwest Indiana

Posted 07 February 2011 - 09:52 AM

Evos will only accept things that are natural, you don't have to deny the supernatural to appease them. If they think it's a cop out, so be it.

Trying to go to their level of requirement is actually a sin. Why? Because to do so you deny the power of God.

2tim 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

They prefer the creature over the creator.

rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

They are also intellectual Pharisees. Deeming their own thoughts as god. Making their reasoning, logic, and free thought more wise than the written word of God. Not realizing that what a person claims is of God also becomes part of their worship. So they basically worship their own thoughts.

View Post



Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him. Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his. Proverbs 26:4-5

http://www.gotquesti...rbs-26-4-5.html

View Post



I completely agree with both of you, thank you and God bless.

I just wanted to make sure I wan't missing any details from the story of Noah's flood.

#26 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 07 February 2011 - 10:41 AM

I completely agree with both of you, thank you and God bless.

I just wanted to make sure I wan't missing any details from the story of Noah's flood.

View Post

I am not reprimanding you. Issac's post just reminded me of that scripture and article.

I have grown quite a bit since discovering YEC and this forum. I have found that I am coming back around full circle to where I started from. The earth may or may not be young. Noah's flood happened. We don't know how, but we do see evidence that it happened. There are many details that we don't have factual evidence for, so maybe it is best to leave them alone rather than cause divisions over them, kwim?

#27 Seek123

Seek123

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 62 posts
  • Interests:God<br />Music (I play piano, violin, guitar, and bass guitar)<br />Nature and camping (I have achieved my Eagle Scout Rank)<br />Reading<br />Friends<br />Biology<br />Much much more...
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Northwest Indiana

Posted 07 February 2011 - 10:50 AM

I am not reprimanding you. Issac's post just reminded me of that scripture and article.

I have grown quite a bit since discovering YEC and this forum. I have found that I am coming back around full circle to where I started from. The earth may or may not be young. Noah's flood happened. We don't know how, but we do see evidence that it happened. There are many details that we don't have factual evidence for, so maybe it is best to leave them alone rather than cause divisions over them, kwim?

View Post


I know you weren't meaning any harm. Honestly, I agree with the scriptures both of you pointed out to me, I was thanking you for reminding me of them. The word of God always has a way of clarifying things.

I too, have questioned many different worldviews and their likelyhood. But time and time again, the Bible seems to always have the Truth. I was simply curious about any details that might or might not have been overlooked in the scriptures of Noah's flood.

#28 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 07 February 2011 - 03:42 PM

Oops, looks like I forgot about this thread! My bad.

Now a question for you. Which is more adaptable? The original two wolves or the evolved chihuahuas?

The answer is rather obvious.

View Post

Is it? My answer would be that both are equally adaptable.

Supposedly 25% of all known species are near extinction today. And if the habitat changes, good bye species. But why? Why can't they adapt. Well the answer is simple. Why can't the chihuahuas adapt to the cold wild environment of the Northwest? They would be extinct in no time if we took them out of their cumfy pocketbook totes. The answer is that they have lost the genetic capacity to adapt. This is the true direction of evolution.

View Post

Evolution is a gradual process, and a lot of the extinctions that have occurred within the last few centuries are the direct result of human activity (hunting, clear cutting, etc). Animals don’t adapt that quickly.
Perhaps you could explain what exactly the “genetic capacity to adapt” is, and how it can be lost.

#29 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 February 2011 - 06:33 PM

Hi Phish,

The average mammal size is around the size of a sheep. If we use that as an average, then we could fit 50,000 sheep and still have 64% of its capacity for provisions.

NPcbeWJtf84?fs=1&
Enjoy.

View Post


What's strange here is that this guy doesn't mention that you can pack 240 sheep into a stock car with two decks. The decks on Noah's ark weren't doubled. Secondly, he fails to point out that we should try leaving 240 sheep on a stock car for one month let alone five(the shortest length of time I've seen spent on the Ark) to see if they could all really survive. Plus, animals don't exactly fit together like legos. Alligators, for example, take up far more area for their volume than humans do.

This isn't make things as hard as possible for Noah, it's throwing common sense out the window under the guise of fudging the numbers against him.

The Ark's size should actually be one of the lesser objections. Isabella's made more sense to me.

#30 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 07 February 2011 - 07:07 PM

Oops, looks like I forgot about this thread! My bad.

View Post


Here is an easy way to keep up with everywhere you post. You click on your own name as you see it here in this thread. Then click: Find members posts. This will list your posts newest to oldest and you will never lose track this way.

#31 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 08 February 2011 - 06:55 AM

Is it? My answer would be that both are equally adaptable.

View Post


Ok, so we know for a fact that a wolf population can adapt to selective pressures and yield a chihuahua population. So the Wolf is very adaptable, yielding many varieties along the way.

Now take a chihuahua population and start breeding it. Are you going to get greyhounds along the way? How about Golden retrievers? Beagles? Wolves?

Any breeder would laugh at the notion, because the genetic information for some of those breeds is lost in starting population of the chihuahuas. Of course we could just wait a million years or so and pray for more mutations in the already mutated and degenerated breed.

So let's now remove the vague word of adaptable and lets use the word fit. Is the chihuahua population more or less fit that the parent population of wolves? If the two populations exist in any given environment, who will survive? The wolves or the chihuahuas? Who will eat whom?

Evolution is a gradual process, and a lot of the extinctions that have occurred within the last few centuries are the direct result of human activity (hunting, clear cutting, etc). Animals don’t adapt that quickly.


Well aren't humans just another animal to the naturalist? Aren't they a part of nature. Aren't they a part of natural selection? Humans hunt? Don't all the other animals? Humans clear cut? Don't many other grazing animals? If animals can't adapt they go extinct. With or without humans right? It happens every day.

But you say animals can't adapt that quickly. They need years........But we know that's not true. The so called KT event was relatively quick. It was global in it's effect. Some animals couldn't adapt and they went extinct, but some animals survived and supposedly thrived and evolved. Right? So I don't think you are being consistent with your position.


Perhaps you could explain what exactly the “genetic capacity to adapt” is, and how it can be lost.


I'll be happy to. It's really simple Mendelian genetics. Ya know, the stuff that was added into Darwinism to make it neo-Darwinism. Neo is the new thing ya know. So You have two wolves, and they have a litter of eight. One is totally black. The black wolf meets up with another totally black wolf. They make eyes with each other, an before you know it they have a litter of eight pups and they are all black. Now an earthquake happens and the land gets divided and all the black wolves get separated from the rest of the wolves. The balck wolves continue to survive and thrive. But the original population of wolves has the genetic capacity to create black wolves, white wolves, grey wolves and lots of mixtures of colors. But the black wolves only have the genetic capacity to create black wolves.

That is how genetic capacity is lost. Bottlenecks is another good example of how genetic capacity is lost. But most importantly, genetic capacity is mostly lost by mutation. That's what happens with hemoglobin and malaria resistance. One hemoglobin allele gets damaged and becomes sickle shaped, which is not good exept that in a malaria environment the malaria doesn't attach to the shape of the sickle. So the mutant individual is fitter in this environment only. And the population evolves to be mutants. But don't let two mutants get together, because two mutated hemoglobin alleles is worse than the malaria. And this is one of the hallmark examples of evolution!

#32 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 08 February 2011 - 09:29 PM

Ok, so we know for a fact that a wolf population can adapt to selective pressures and yield a chihuahua population.  So the Wolf is very adaptable, yielding many varieties along the way.

Now take a chihuahua population and start breeding it.  Are you going to get greyhounds along the way?  How about Golden retrievers?  Beagles?  Wolves?

Any breeder would laugh at the notion, because the genetic information for some of those breeds is lost in starting population of the chihuahuas.  Of course we could just wait a million years or so and pray for more mutations in the already mutated and degenerated breed.

So let's now remove the vague word of adaptable and lets use the word fit.  Is the chihuahua population more or less fit that the parent population of wolves?  If the two populations exist in any given environment, who will survive?  The wolves or the chihuahuas?  Who will eat whom?
Well aren't humans just another animal to the naturalist?  Aren't they a part of nature.  Aren't they a part of natural selection?  Humans hunt?  Don't all the other animals?  Humans clear cut?  Don't many other grazing animals?  If animals can't adapt they go extinct.  With or without humans right?  It happens every day.

But you say animals can't adapt that quickly.  They need years........But we know that's not true.  The so called KT event was relatively quick.  It was global in it's effect.  Some animals couldn't adapt and they went extinct, but some animals survived and supposedly thrived and evolved.  Right?  So I don't think you are being consistent with your position.
I'll be happy to.  It's really simple Mendelian genetics.  Ya know, the stuff that was added into Darwinism to make it neo-Darwinism.  Neo is the new thing ya know.  So You have two wolves, and they have a litter of eight.  One is totally black.  The black wolf meets up with another totally black wolf.  They make eyes with each other, an before you know it they have a litter of eight pups and they are all black.  Now an earthquake happens and the land gets divided and all the black wolves get separated from the rest of the wolves.  The balck wolves continue to survive and thrive.  But the original population of wolves has the genetic capacity to create black wolves, white wolves, grey wolves and lots of mixtures of colors.  But the black wolves only have the genetic capacity to create black wolves.

That is how genetic capacity is lost.  Bottlenecks is another good example of how genetic capacity is lost.  But most importantly, genetic capacity is mostly lost by mutation.  That's what happens with hemoglobin and malaria resistance.  One hemoglobin allele gets damaged and becomes sickle shaped, which is not good exept that in a malaria environment the malaria doesn't attach  to the shape of the sickle.  So the mutant individual is fitter in this environment only.  And the population evolves to be mutants.  But don't let two mutants get together, because two mutated hemoglobin alleles is worse than the malaria.  And this is one of the hallmark examples of evolution!

View Post


Also, regardless of how they get separated, do they speciate?

#33 The Ark

The Ark

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 78 posts
  • Age: 62
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Australia

Posted 09 February 2011 - 08:02 AM

I believe the answer to Noah's Ark is very simple.

Firstly, let's assume someone describes a car and there are few things that don't add up...it has 10 litre V8, weighs 2 tons and gets 200 miles per gallon, does the standing 1/4 mile in 4 seconds etc and etc. However we identify the car and establish it is a Ford or a GM or a Toyota, take your pick. But the car does exist. Of course since it was made by either Ford, GM or Toyota we know the claims are 100% false because existing technology simply won't allow for such a car.

Now to the The Ark. As soon as anyone discusses The Ark and its dimensions and so on then such a discussion assumes the The Ark existed, that is, it was true. But if we assume The Ark is true then obviously God is true and now the builder is God, not Ford, GM or the Toyota Boat Buliding companies. Once God is the builder then all discussions based on some logic about fitting the animals on the The Ark become totally irrelevant.

#34 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 09 February 2011 - 09:42 AM

This may have come up in the forums before, but I'd like to hear people's input.

There are about
-5400 species of mammal: including three species of elephant, 5 species of rhinoceros, and two of hippo.
-8000 species of reptile
-10,000 species of bird, most of which are not capable for flying for 40 days straight without landing
-10 million species of insect

Add those up, and multiply them by two, that's a LOT of animals. The size of Noah's Ark was established as 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high. How'd they all fit?

View Post


Please read through point 4. The first 3 are more or less background to creationist theory which is often strawmanned, or misunderstood by evolutionists. I give credit to Dr. Keith Hendrie, whom I know personally, for some of the data in point 4. He was a botanist/ biologist ex evolutionist, who also was the head of the science department at my Bible college. Point 4 is mine, but some of it's data was given by Dr. Hendrie from his research.

1) No creationist I know holds to species fixity. One can look at a blue jay and cardinal, a mink and a marten, an African elephant, and an Indian elephant. It's obvious alleles have switched on and/or off. Mutation will have happened. Some of it, will be in effect absense of expression, changing the phenotype.

2) S@xual selection, adaptive variation, limited speciation (linages) within a family, and the most unacknowledged factor of all--hybridization, both naturally and by the hand of man, are all a part of the history of the animals that came off the ark. http://en.wikipedia....natural_hybrids

Hybridisation between two closely related species is actually a common occurrence in nature. Many hybrid zones are known where the ranges of two species meet, and hybrids are continually produced in great numbers. These hybrid zones are useful as biological model systems for studying the mechanisms of speciation (Hybrid speciation). Recently DNA analysis of a bear shot by a hunter in the North West Territories confirmed the existence of naturally-occurring and fertile grizzly–polar bear hybrids.[17] There have been reports of similar supposed hybrids, but this is the first to be confirmed by DNA analysis. In 1943, Clara Helgason described a male bear shot by hunters during her childhood. It was large and off-white with hair all over its paws. The presence of hair on the bottom of the feet suggests it was a natural hybrid of Kodiak and Polar bear.



3) There is a difference between a "kind" and a "species." "Species" is a manmade term defining slight geno and phenotypical differences between organisms, not a biological "division." A "kind" is starting point of definining alleles with the ability of variation within the parameters of the starting alleles. A proof is that different species can mate. But there are other species that can not mate. In the Biblical paradigm, this predicts an alligator will not mate with a bear.

4) Not every modern species was on the ark. Speciation has occurred since the ark --4300 years.

This is based on principles in Genesis that show exactly what we see in S@xual selection. Speciation is supporting evidence for the truth of scripture rather than evolution.


Gen. 1:11--The Baraminic Instinct causes speciation within baramin (created kinds)
“Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds(baramin).” And it was so

At first glance, this "according to their kinds" principle would seem to contradict any kind of speciation. Keep in mind, we have made distinction between baramin (created kinds) and species (modern animals)


According to Dr. Hendrie, what happens in observing "species" is there is a Gaussian distribution in traits within a species. There is variation even within a species, but then there is a graphical dip on both sides of the mean in which there are "outliers."

Taking Dr. Hendries observations, and coupling that with what is observable in S@xual selection, one can infer the outliers will begin to speciate sympatrically. Once that speciation begins to take place, the animals within the mean for that population will tend to mate, while the outliers also will tend to mate together--hence a subpopulation that will eventually seperate from the original population.
As a result, today, we have minks mating with minks and martens mating with martens, but they could have formed from outliers of the Gaussian distribution mean of traits. The observation is a distingushable variation in martens and minks. There is not one large homogenously mixed popualtion. The graphic variation betweent the two looks just like the Gaussian distribution.

The Gen1:11 principle is working within the instinct of territorialism in the animals--this keeps them in mating groups, and forms new species in the outliers (different in size, or some other distinguishable trait) of the mean. Birds of a feather flock together.

Marten
Posted Image

Mink
Posted Image

The observation of three density functions (Gaussian distribution) in martens, minks, and fishers was instrumental in making Dr Hendrie question evolution. I don't know his view on the common ancestry between these species. I think there is common ancestry, either by sympatric speciation, or hybridization.

The above two species are in the same genera. There are enough similarities to show probable common ancestry, but they are obviously two seperate linages that rarely, if ever, mate.

A S@xual selection, or sympatric speciation hypothesis could be, one of them had a change in a allele that affected size. Say the mink received a mutation which made it smaller than average, but not enough to keep the allele from the population. Over a few generations, the smaller martens are rejected by the larger females, or more likely, are dominated by larger male martins. The smaller male martens find smaller female martens that do not reject them, and produce smaller martens. They will be rejected eventually by the larger martens by territorial instinct, and strength dominance in S@xual selection.

Therefore the innate instinct within the animals to produce after their kind is fulfilled, and at the same time predicts the very micro evolution that is observed in species, because of s@xual selection.

Hybrid hypothesis--Notice the marten has the traits of a raccoon. What if the marten is a cross between a raccoon and a fisher. What if there were similar kinds that could mate. Perhaps man crossed a marten with a raccoon.

#35 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 09 February 2011 - 01:24 PM

Here is an easy way to keep up with everywhere you post. You click on your own name as you see it here in this thread. Then click: Find members posts. This will list your posts newest to oldest and you will never lose track this way.

View Post


Thanks for the tip! Sometimes I get overloaded with work and I have to take a break.



Ok, so we know for a fact that a wolf population can adapt to selective pressures and yield a chihuahua population. So the Wolf is very adaptable, yielding many varieties along the way.

Now take a chihuahua population and start breeding it. Are you going to get greyhounds along the way? How about Golden retrievers? Beagles? Wolves?

View Post

No, but if you bred the population for long enough you could probably end up with something that looks quite different from a chihuahua.

Any breeder would laugh at the notion, because the genetic information for some of those breeds is lost in starting population of the chihuahuas.

View Post

Lost? Where did it go? It seems to me that you’re dwelling on the very outdated idea that breeding animals is much like mixing paint colors. You start with red and blue, and when you mix them together you end up with purple. But no matter how many times you mix purple, you’ll never get the red and blue paint you started out with. This “blending” analogy was a popular one before people understood how inheritance works, but today we know it’s not accurate.

So let's now remove the vague word of adaptable and lets use the word fit. Is the chihuahua population more or less fit that the parent population of wolves? If the two populations exist in any given environment, who will survive? The wolves or the chihuahuas? Who will eat whom?

View Post

Fitness, in an evolutionary context, means reproductive success. An organism is considered fit if it can produce many offspring, and those offspring can live long enough to have offspring of their own. Under ideal conditions, I have no idea what the relative reproductive success of chihuahuas would be compared to wolves. Obviously wolves would be more fit in a northern climate, but perhaps there are some environments where chihuahuas would have an advantage due to their smaller size and thinner fur. The point is that fitness is not a measure of “who will eat whom”.

Well aren't humans just another animal to the naturalist? Aren't they a part of nature. Aren't they a part of natural selection? Humans hunt? Don't all the other animals? Humans clear cut? Don't many other grazing animals? If animals can't adapt they go extinct. With or without humans right? It happens every day.

View Post

The hunting and clear cutting activity of humans is not comparable to the hunting and grazing of other animals. The use of technology has allowed us to make a much larger impact than we would otherwise be able to. Technology has also allowed us to artificially adapt to new environments.

But you say animals can't adapt that quickly. They need years........But we know that's not true. The so called KT event was relatively quick. It was global in it's effect. Some animals couldn't adapt and they went extinct, but some animals survived and supposedly thrived and evolved. Right? So I don't think you are being consistent with your position.

View Post

This is not an area I know a lot about, but from what I remember it is hypothesized that the K-T extinction was caused by as asteroid. No one is suggesting that animals were able to evolve rapidly enough to deal with the immediate effects of the event... hence why it’s considered a mass extinction and not a “mass evolution”. Any animals that survived were able to do so for a reason. Over the course of many generations, this positive selection could lead to evolutionary change.

I'll be happy to. It's really simple Mendelian genetics. Ya know, the stuff that was added into Darwinism to make it neo-Darwinism. Neo is the new thing ya know. So You have two wolves, and they have a litter of eight. One is totally black. The black wolf meets up with another totally black wolf. They make eyes with each other, an before you know it they have a litter of eight pups and they are all black. Now an earthquake happens and the land gets divided and all the black wolves get separated from the rest of the wolves. The balck wolves continue to survive and thrive. But the original population of wolves has the genetic capacity to create black wolves, white wolves, grey wolves and lots of mixtures of colors. But the black wolves only have the genetic capacity to create black wolves.

View Post

Fair enough, in your example the other coat colors would indeed be lost... unless a mutation occurred somewhere in the coat pigment pathway (albinism, for example). The only problem is that most traits are not Mendelian traits. In fact, hardly any traits are. A Mendelian trait is determined by one gene and two alleles. Mendel also makes the assumption that the gene for each trait is on a separate chromosome. In reality, most traits are determined by multiple genes and multiple alleles. Genes can also be linked, which means they’re found on the same chromosome and often inherited together.

In the case of dog breeding, there isn’t one gene determining whether a dog will be small or large, black or white, etc. There are several. Two dogs that look identical could actually have very different genotypes for any given trait. Furthermore, dog breeders are only selecting for a limited number of traits and therefore a limited number of genes. So while chihuahuas may have less genetic diversity than wolves when it comes to the genes that determine coat length, they could actually have more diversity (or the same amount of diversity) in the genes for another, less apparent trait such as brain or muscle development.

That is how genetic capacity is lost. Bottlenecks is another good example of how genetic capacity is lost. But most importantly, genetic capacity is mostly lost by mutation. That's what happens with hemoglobin and malaria resistance. One hemoglobin allele gets damaged and becomes sickle shaped, which is not good exept that in a malaria environment the malaria doesn't attach to the shape of the sickle. So the mutant individual is fitter in this environment only. And the population evolves to be mutants. But don't let two mutants get together, because two mutated hemoglobin alleles is worse than the malaria. And this is one of the hallmark examples of evolution!

View Post

Mutation increases genetic variation, not decreases it. Sickle cell anemia may have negative effects in homozygotes, but the point is that it still results in a new physical trait. Mutations can also add harmless variation to a population, such as mutant flowers with unusual petal colors. And in some cases, the mutation can actually be beneficial. For example, perhaps those mutant flowers are better at attracting pollinating insects as a result.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users