Genetic Entropy and Your Future: a Flood of Mutations Strikes Back

[infinity730]

Natural Selection works on more than just the genetic level, while his assertions that deleterious genes cannot be selected for is arguable, his understanding of the actual mechanisms behind natural selection are lacking greatly. He also doesn't seem to know most mutations are neutral.

Also, in reference to your below bar sources, creation dot com is not a peer reviewed source, and is itself a group of individuals religiously motivated to distort facts in order to achieve belief in the reader.

[IloveYOUviruses]

@infinity730 have you at least read his book? this is not a "must" to comment, but if you are gonna attack the person, at least check his work.

Ok, it seems that your contention is that we can survive the accumulation of mutations bcuz most of them would be neutral, if so, you'd be equivocating neutrality in fitness effect and neutrality in selection (as defined by Dr Kimura and referenced by Dr Sanford), looking at the data, even synonymous mutations have been shown to have deleterious effects

[IloveYOUviruses]

@infinity730 in the case of genetic deterioration, we can solely rely on observations to make up our minds, and from what I see, the fact that every newborn develops dozens of denovo mutations, plus the fact that most mutations have very slight deleterious effects, mankind -and possibly other mammalians- can only deteriorate genetically, what do you think? what else should we consider?

[infinity730]

@IloveYOUviruses "most mutations have very slight deleterious effects" Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).

[infinity730]

A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly (Elena et al. 1996).

[IloveYOUviruses]

@infinity730 Nachman stimates presupossed human chimp divergency, which in the darwinian schools is fine, but here it just begs the question, you'd excuse me here, but I prefer observations, has someone evaluated point mutations in a genome? the answer is yes, P Lind et al motivated by the lack of experimental approaches did the homework with Salmonella genes, the result:

"most mutations (120 out of 126) are weakly deleterious and the remaining ones are potentially neutral."

[infinity730]

@IloveYOUviruses Just read that paper, nice quotemine, but it doesn't disagree with anything I said.

[IloveYOUviruses]

@infinity730 quote mine? cuz I quoted just one part? aren't all quotes like that? please check how quote mining works, as far as I know, you are free here to complete the data that I left out, please don't throw accusations without the justification.

[IloveYOUviruses]

@infinity730 Granted, there are not many experimental (scientific) approaches with respect to the DFEs but If we were to stick to observations, I think skepticism towards mammalian evolution is the appropriate position, considering all the dozens of mutations affecting our genome each generation.

Now, it seems your last comments appeals to a potential benefit in most mutations, please correct me if I got you wrong in that so I can proceed.

[infinity730]

@IloveYOUviruses "skepticism towards mammalian evolution is the appropriate position" Even with the fossil record?

"potential benefit in most mutations"

AGAIN, for the THIRD TIME, MOST MUTATIONS ARE NEUTRAL, AND DEPENDENT ON THE ENVIRONMENT THE ORGANISM INHABITS.

[IloveYOUviruses]

@infinity730 "MOST MUTATIONS ARE NEUTRAL"

I know you require that to reconciliate darwinism with the accumulation of point mutations in our genome, but experiments just contradict your statement, if your justification is a mantra then you should understand why ppl like Sanford disbelief in an evolutionary past.

Forgive me for relying in observations.

[infinity730]

@IloveYOUviruses "Forgive me for relying in observations."

Please read this:

Perfeito, Lilia, Lisete Fernandes, Catarina Mota and Isabel Gordo. 2007. Adaptive mutations in bacteria: High rate and small effects. Science 317: 813-815.

Then this:

Wichman, H. A. et al. 1999. Different trajectories of parallel evolution during viral adaptation. Science 285: 422-424.

Then you might actually get a clue.

[IloveYOUviruses]

@infinity730 Before giving you the proper response, please say, how does Wichman study helps your cause? as for Perfeito et al, their results are totally harmonious with P Lind's 120 mutations out of 126 being weakly deleterious.

Don't forget that with 100+ denovo mutations per human embryo, expecting to have all of them NOT deleterious is worst than belief in magic, is just pure denial to reality.

[odinata]

How does removing ratings turn this turd into anything else?

[IloveYOUviruses]

@odinata to me, it is important to know why ppl like/dislike the vid instead of having a thumb that really says nothing. If you have a respectful, related comment, I'm all ears :D

God bless

[odinata]

@IloveYOUviruses

You know that your YEC garbage would get decimated here--it already has.

I don't blame you for disabling ratings.

Genetic Entropy is garbage, and you aren't all ears---

You are all brainwashed.

[IloveYOUviruses]

@odinata I was expecting a more substantiated -and related- comment but revealing your manners its ok too ;)

[odinata]

@IloveYOUviruses

You have not demonstrated that your religious opinions are a valid substitute for scientific fact, so why are you demanding that I refute your religious opinions?

[IloveYOUviruses]

@odinata your dialectic is kinda odd... perhaps is a cultural issue, I'm only interested in knowing other mind's reaction to Sanford's arguments, as I said

"to me, it is important to know why ppl like/dislike the vid instead of having a thumb that really says nothing..."

If you have a voice about the content of the video, please comment, I'm all ears :)

[odinata]

@IloveYOUviruses

Science has rejected Sanfords assertions thoroughly.

If you were "all ears', you would have heard the science that rejects Young Earth Creationism in all its forms, including Sanfords's, as garbage

The content of the video has been demonstrated to be garbage.

[IloveYOUviruses]

@odinata "The content of the video has been demonstrated to be garbage."

You do realize that you are only relying on assertions here?

I'm all ears bcuz I'm patiently waiting for a substantiated comment from yours, not bcuz I have to agree with your assertions.

As I see it, we have the fact that every newborn develops arround 100 denovo mutations every generation, that's in the video, that's a starter, what do you think?

[odinata]

@IloveYOUviruses

Do you relaize that Sanfords assertions have not replaced actual science?

Mutations haven't been shown to accumulate at the rate hes been claiming.

Genetic entropy has been demonstrated here.

Your a YEC assumptions just aren't cutting it.

[IloveYOUviruses]

@odinata If you are rejecting that human newborns develop +-100 denovo mutations then you are lightly outdated in observational science; Sanford's official claim is that human mutation rates is arround 100 (point mutations only), this has been demonstrated to be factual, check the details below the vid (see Human mutation rate revealed (2009) ).

(after reading...)

Now that you know each of us has more mutations that our progenitors, I wonder, how do you deal with that?

[RealityScope]

...your comments page. I won't write anymore. We've reached an impasse. You have Genesis and I have science. I will remain curious, skeptical, without dogma or superstition, and I will sleep well. I have no doubt, unfortunately, that you will sleep well also.

[RealityScope]

...or seems to be, a little misguided. A scientific theory is never 'presupposed'.  It starts as a hypothesis that the scientific community then must rigorously attempt to disprove. We don't hear Darwin tell us evolution is true and then conduct every experiment or hypothetical model with the assumption he is right. We systematically try to dismantle it. So far the theory, while being modified and updated as new evidence comes in, remains the only theory that accounts for the evidence.

[IloveYOUviruses]

@RealityScope indeed I was the one who called PT dubious evidence (if anything), what the authors said was that they "found considerable discordance across gene trees", clearly debunking the myth of the "perfect family tree"

what you are saying is that the similarities can still be arranged to try to resemble a tree, but there's nothing scientific about it, it's like making a constellation for your gf, you can alike codes them in every shape, but in detail the tree -and the evidence- is gone.

[IloveYOUviruses]

@RealityScope Forgive me the missunderstanding of the pressuposition of evolution, I wasn't criticizing the history of science, but your comments loaded with the presuposition of evolution, I only want to point out that I don't start with the presupossition but with the facts in order to make a freethinking process that is not limited by exclusive naturalism.

[IloveYOUviruses]

@RealityScope For someone freed from popular authorities, a fuzzy arrangement of genes says really nothing beyond "similar phenotype ergo similar genotype" which is obvious but leads to nowhere, also, I have to be honest with myself, I cannot label a thesis as "theory" when it has been modified with every discordance (as you were trying to do) cuz in doing so, it ceases to be a theory since is no longer falsifiable.

[IloveYOUviruses]

@RealityScope Once a freethinker who sticks to the facts and is open to various interpretations of Genesis 1, I found the hypothesis of natural development as highly improbable, simply for the fact that you carry more mutations than your parents, much more than your grandparents ans so on, knowing this, believe that we came by a degenerative process becomes very very difficult, and requires a denial of scientific facts.

[RealityScope]

@IloveYOUviruses well, let's be honest...there's nothing I really can say, is there, that would change your mind? What could I say? If I tell you that the scientific community accepts evolution as fact, you'd tell me it's a huge conspiracy theory. If I threw out apologists on your side who disagree with you (like Francis Collins, for example) what would you say? Are you a young-earth creationist? I suspect you don't trust radiometric dating? All these are details that just don't matter...

[IloveYOUviruses]

@RealityScope So you finally show your true colors, it was predictable, but still sad, you are one to criticize ratings disabled, but sure don't realize the weakness shown by personal attacks.

1st: evidently observable evidence for accumulated mutations won't change your belief in an unobservable evolutionary process, I know that, and I won't try to change your mind, all I wanted was a friendly dialogue.

But it seems that the you had to go on denial of the facts and incurr in personal attack.

[IloveYOUviruses]

@RealityScope And by personal attacks I refer arguments predending to know my views in historical sciences and what I value or not; hey, it's ok to say I don't know, empirical science is by default agnostic, and prefers to accept ignorance rather than accepting a faulty theory such as neo-darwinism. In this sense, your argument is flawed, just bcuz we don't know empirically how we came here, doesn't mean we have to believe in a degenerative and imaginary process: evolution.

[IloveYOUviruses]

@RealityScope 3) please stop appealing to authorities, is another one of those faulty reasonings I have to ignore to prevent flooding the comments. I don't care of how many ppl disagree, I only care for their arguments, so far you only presented the "perfect family tree" which after close examination it was "detected genealogical discordance so widespread that no single tree topology predominates"

As for the cambrian rabbit, there is long known precambrian pollen Nature 202(4930):384

[IloveYOUviruses]

@RealityScope 4) And finally, yes, you brought up a lot of side issues, but always always avoided the topic of the video, specially after I showed you that the "perfect tree" was a myth.

In summary, you ignored the evident problem of accumulated mutations, which is the same as accepting that you can't deal with it, at least I'm open to your views, you... just read to what you said, there's nothing scientific (empirical) on what you said.

[RealityScope]

...because you have thrown out "Genesis" as your answer. There's nothing I can say to you. That's your trump card. Unfalsifiable as Russell's Teapot... You think that's a trump card. I think you just showed your ass. And that's where it stands. You just don't value evidence. A book of the Bible is all you need. You don't care just how many scientists stand against you. Science is flawed, you say. It's just a conspiracy. It doesn't matter to you that JBS Haldane said that rabbits...

[RealityScope]

...in the precambrian would dismantle the theory...You don't even trust...anything that a scientist would say. I feel sorry for you. I sincerely don't mean that as an underhanded "fuck you"--I really feel sorry for you. You obviously at some point had someone teaching you WHAT to think instead of HOW to think. You dodged earlier but tell me--what is Sanford's theory that accounts, in his mind, for the entropy he claims should happen but obviously is not? God did it? He made us--and...

[RealityScope]

...everything else with all the evidence that common ancestry and shared descent and evolution actually happened but that--what? God made evolution in this way but failed to get the formula right so he tweaked it to make sure that complex organisms could still arise? What is your theory?! God did it. end of discussion. Well. You don't believe that. If you did you would throw out medical science (you would expect to live a much shorter life)...you would throw out all inquiry that science..

[RealityScope]

...has provided? A common, everyday device like a GPS depends on Einstein's theories... did god do that? Is Einstein part of this mass conspiracy? Where do you draw the line? Or do you at all?  God did it. You said it. There's nothing anyone can say to change your mind. If I tell you that the writers of the paper you quoted are not creationists, and just serious scientists who are concerned with the minutiae of evolutionary biology--who don't question for a second the FACT of evolution...

[RealityScope]

...LIKE people whom, it seems, you should claim like Francis Collins, you will tell me once again that it's a big conspiracy? You have no position. You just don't value evidence. The evidence I say I have you will throw out immediately... I could suggest books to you that outline the overwhelming evidence for evolution but you won't care. You won't read them. They are, after all, part of the conspiracy. You have Genesis. That's all you need, isn't it? No apologies for cluttering up...

[RealityScope]

...is "considerable discordance across GENE TREES" (emphasis mine) is not to say there is considerable discordance across the WHOLE TREE. It's useful to point out they still consider it a "tree" for illustrative purposes. Your quote then describes a discordance within disparate LOCAL groups. There's no doubt, once again that while the details may be blurry at the moment, the whole "paradigm" as you say still holds up. And i must say, respectfully, that your idea of scientific theory is...

[RealityScope]

Thank you for the quote--I was unable to pull up the full paper but part of what you say is borne out of the abstract. There's no doubt that the phylogenetic "tree" is locally more like a "network" but the point still remains that there is a definite general trend from simple to complex. The authors of this paper are not saying that phylogenetic trees are "dubious evidence"--they're saying that the details are "not quite as simple" as earlier evidence might have suggested. To say that there..

[IloveYOUviruses]

I'll quote the paper in case you don't find the tag:

"Many of the first studies to examine the conflicting signal of different genes have found considerable discordance across gene trees: studies of hominids [9–11], pines [12], cichlids [13], finches [14], grasshoppers [15] and fruit flies [16] have all detected genealogical discordance so widespread that no single tree topology predominates"

As a skeptical of evolution, this shows that PTs are -at best- dubious evidence.

[RealityScope]

...unknowns within the theory that are actively being studied. It's important to understand exactly why they are being studied...it's not because science is trying to refute claims by proponents of ID that somehow they find to be ruinous to the theory but because evolution by natural selection is the backbone of biology and scientists are genuinely interested in the details even if they for the time being must remain theoretical. Sorry for typing so much--don't mean to clutter up your comments

[RealityScope]

...here we are talking about it. Now I am no theoretical evolutionary biologist and by his own admission, neither is Sanford. The types of hypothetical models he is discussing are issues for which theoretical evolutionary biologists do have differing theories on--but in no way are these disputes over details giving anyone in the science community the slightest doubt about whether or not evolution happened. The theory of evolution so far accounts for all observable facts but there are still...

[RealityScope]

...genomes in this way we also see a hierarchy of complexity that flows generally in one direction towards more complex organisms--just as we see older fossil layers with less complexity flowing in one direction through time to more recent fossil layers containing the fossils of ever more complex organisms.  Now, again, we know common ancestry through evolution is what we are seeing, and of course we know the type of hypothetical scenario Sanford is talking about is not what is happening because

[RealityScope]

...of descent--just as Darwin proposed should be possible if the theory were to work. This is of course exactly what we see and of course DNA was unknown to Darwin when he proposed this. We can see, sobering as it may be, exactly how we are related to fish, chlamydia, and chrysanthemums. If you've ever seen the completely mapped genome of a chimpanzee next to that of a human it is truly awe-inspiring. We see similarities and differences but we also see the same genes themselves. Mapping...

[RealityScope]

OK--well the first bit of evidence I would point out is that, far beyond an "arrangement of similar genes", we have DNA evidence that confirms some mechanism of shared ancestry and common decent has happened throughout the distant past (starting at about 3.5 billion years ago) up through the present. We don't share just similar genes but the same genes as our ancestors. When comparing the genomes of any two living things we find that we can plot every living thing on a perfect "family tree"...

[IloveYOUviruses]

@RealityScope yeah, that was a long comment :p but it's fine

ok, first, you have to understand that I don't start with the assumption of evolution to fit the evidence on it, that said, philogenetic trees (PT) are a way to arrange similar genes according to the darwinian paradigm, so the question is, Does it really form a branching tree? and the answer is not

(see Trends Ecol Evol. 2009 Jun;24(6):332-40)

[IloveYOUviruses]

@RealityScope the doc shows that a detailed observation shows that gene similarities form a mixture of a net and tree topology.

To me, it is obvious that similar phenotypes will have similar information/genotypes and of course, if one tries to make a diagram with the similarities, an awe.inspiring structure will arise but it won't be a tree, it will be a net linking similar creatures.

Since I don't pressupose evolution, the accumulation of VSD mutations clearly refutes the hypothesis.

[RealityScope]

It also seems that Sanford is making the fatal flaw of blurring the line between natural and artificial selection. As he opens this video he says he knows a lot about selection and as a plant breeder this is no doubt true--but that of course is artificial selection. And again...you should see the problem with disabling your ratings. It makes you look dishonest from the outset.

[RealityScope]

Instead this is just another version of the tired old "evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics" claim. What theory does Sanford propose? Nothing. I guess he just suggests (if somehow his dubious claims were true) that the baby would have to be thrown out with the bath water. How does he account for the overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution?

[RealityScope]

No, I do not judge the videos by their popularity but I do judge the uploader by disabling the ratings. You only ever see this on one side of the argument. It looks bad and you know it.

[IloveYOUviruses]

@RealityScope "but I do judge the uploader by disabling the ratings"

oh no! you've just judged me! lol

I can't believe you still don't realize that your comment is irrelevant unless you adress the topic of the video.

[RealityScope]

@IloveYOUviruses So what is Sanford saying exactly? We know the genome is not degenerated in this way because here we and other complex organisms are to discuss it. But we know that evolution works because of the massive evidence for it. So is he saying that god created us through evolution but his mechanism of evolution somehow wasn't properly tuned for fitness or longevity as a species so he had to step in and re-adjust our genomes to compensate? This is not science.

[IloveYOUviruses]

@RealityScope Wow, it's good to know that your only concern is not pop contests.

Ok, you made bold claims of "lots of evidence for evolution", I hope you don't refer to an arrangement of bones, races among species or other dubious lines evidence that ignore the rate of mutation in higher genomes.

Sanford's claim is very simple and I summarize it at 6:08

As you may, know, in science is easy to refute but not to prove, Sanford just refuted this imaginary notion that genomes can evolve.

[RealityScope]

@IloveYOUviruses Ok...if you don't mind I'd like to ask you a question before I answer yours...I presume you must feel you have a very good grasp on the theory of evolution otherwise why would you appear to be so skepitcal that it actually happens. So, if you don't mind, what do you think my answer is likely to be? You must be aware of a lot of the things that scientists say and claim supports the theory. Which one of them do you think I might choose as the most compelling evidence?

[IloveYOUviruses]

@RealityScope I hold the definition that "evidence for X is something that makes X viavility more probable", in this sense, there are various lines of evidence that can be claimed for evolution, such as an arrengement of similar bones or genes comparisons of similar creatures, but obviously similar phenotypes entail similar genotypes, so those are dubious evidence, and it all depends on wether or not genomic evolution is possible or not.

[IloveYOUviruses]

@RealityScope on the popular level there are lines of evidence which masses ignore had been rebuked, those would be junk DNA and ERVs, the first was empirically refuted and the second is inconclusive bcuz they seem to have functionality, there are other claims but I'd prefer to hear the facts or claims that convinced you.

btw, I haven't made any question, am only interested on how you analyze the phenomena of the accumulation of VSD mutations in humans and higher mammalians.

[IloveYOUviruses]

@RealityScope Now, it seems that your response is based in your solid faith in neo-darwinism (ND), I invite you to leave all your presupositions and look at the facts as they are:

-Humans always develop dozens of denovo mutations

-Most mutations are very slightly deleterious (VSD)

-Such mutations can't prevent the organism to reproduce and spreas their mutations

These facts imply that genomic evolution is highly improbable, and very difficult to believe despite the dubious evidence for it.

[RealityScope]

What a shock...ratings disabled.

[IloveYOUviruses]

@RealityScope But not the comments, welcome :)

[Entropy56]

@RealityScope Because any idiot can do a drive-by rating-griefing and not actually have to defend their reasons.

[RealityScope]

@Entropy56 So...what? You're afraid to simply put it to a vote? Do you honestly think there are more evolutionists than creationists watching videos online? Why is it that it's always the creationist videos that have the ratings disabled? You have got to realize how bad this looks.

[IloveYOUviruses]

@RealityScope As the uploader I can tell you that I'm not interested in popularity contests, but in sound critiques or related data. In this sense, you can imagine how relevant your comment is.

[RealityScope]

@IloveYOUviruses OK--so if you don't care about "popularity contests" what's the harm in merely putting it to a vote? It seems you're afraid of doing so. You should be embarrassed. It's intellectually dishonest. Why are there so many creationist videos who disable the ratings??? Don't you see how bad this looks?

[IloveYOUviruses]

@RealityScope ppl tends to be distracted by any popularity indicator, ppl tends to make a fuss about it, you are a great example of that. I know some ppl are here on YT making money with views but this video is not one of those. You have to understand that in the context of the video, your rambling about "dishonesty", "voting", "embarrassment" is totally irrelevant, is like a childish tantrum.

[RealityScope]

@IloveYOUviruses Can you just tell me why so many creationist videos disable the ratings? There's absolutely no good reason to disable them. The credibility of the video is compromised the second you see that they have been disabled. THAT's a distraction. If you see that free and open opinions have been in any way squelched then you know you have a problem.

[IloveYOUviruses]

@RealityScope "The credibility of the video is compromised the second you see that they have been disabled."

if you are one of those who judges something by it's popularity, then science is not for you, if things like marketing or politics are your interest, then go for it and realize that not everything is about ratings.

As you know, this video is open to comments, even if they are unrelated such as yours, although I'd really appreciate reasonable critiques and additional data.

[Entropy56]

@RealityScope “You have got to realize how bad this looks.” Give me a break. Sigh... Let me tell you that I know for a fact that several Darwinist here on YouTube and elsewhere on the Internet censor those who they deem to be disagreeable. They also delete their comments to make them look good. Just from what you have already said, and continue to press your agenda, have been grounds for neo Darwinist to block one from their web page.

[RealityScope]

@Entropy56 and you...well, we really couldn't trace how many people on youtube delete comments to make themselves look better now can we? People on both sides could easily be guilty of that. What could we do? We could look at the ratings and see how many viewers think a given video is bullshit or not. Creationists hate ratings.  They are afraid of putting it to any kind of vote. I click on a video with disabled ratings and 9 times out of 10...it's a creationist video. Try it, you'll see.

[Entropy56]

@RealityScope You haven’t yet contributed anything to this video except for your whining. Your obsession with ratings is not an argument. In the REAL WORLD apart from YouTube, your pet agenda has failed and is increasing to garner opposition. If you want talk about who looks bad, then the honor goes to neo Darwin atheist evangelists and bigoted haters such as Dawkins and Hitchens, who Michael Ruse said, “Makes me ashamed to be an atheist.”

[Entropy56]

@RealityScope I suggest you go to FaceBook and brag how you pwned a Creationist if that will make you feel better.

[SoyBoySigh]

The concept of entropy has direct bearing on physical systems, closed pressure vessels and heat, etc. Entropy is a concept of thermodynamics. But LIFE ... life itself is the antithesis of entropy.

[SoyBoySigh]

Life is the principle of organization and self sustaining organization. It is the exception to the rule. It is, in itself, a force of nature. Just as is entropy. It is a higher order principle of how matter behaves, and is something that will emerge as a tiny infinitessimal exception within a complex system. But once established, it rises to dominance in that system until it either forms a balance or equilibrium within it's environment or exceeds

[IloveYOUviruses]

@SoyBoySigh sigh... there's a lot of dreaming in your statements, of a process that you know you haven't seen, of a process that you know you are only dreaming. From what I see now, I find it extremely hard to believe that the information encoded in DNA could arise from chemical disorder with no DNA repair mechanisms. btw, I respect dreamers, but not dogmatic dreamers.

"pragmatic means to manage hunger and medicine"

I'd like if you develop further this stament.

[SoyBoySigh]

it's limits and destroys itself, returning the environment to the rule of entropy. It's about very long stretches of time, and very large populations of atoms. Alfred Russel Wallace's theory of evolution, as STOLEN by Darwin, was originally a back-lash to religion. But today it is practiced as a pragmatic means to manage hunger and medicine. Those who still look at this to answer their "meaning of life" issues are fundamentally (heh heh) messed up in the head. From EITHER side of the "Debate".

[odinata]

IT was a very straight forward assertion, circusClown.

Why isn't there a corresponding corroboration?

[odinata]

No sarcasm WHATSOEVER....

100% true...

[odinata]

And we have chihuahuas--clearly descended from wolves.....

[circusOFprecision]

@odinata

Look! The troll attacks! That's it? That's all you got? A semi-sarcastic and meaningless remark? Hey, at least subconsciously you want the truth, hence all the "creationist" videos you watch.

[odinata]

@circusOFprecision

How is the this truth a "troll"?

Especially when compared to your unjustified attack on me.

If pointing this fact out is "troll", please let us know how....

[circusOFprecision]

@odinata

Okay, I will be more civil, but don't forget our past conversations. Let's assume that you are correct. That domesticated dog breeds are descendants of wolves. But you do know there are other canine or "dog" species that exist in the wild right? Not just wolves. Here is the point. Chihuahuas have far less genetic information than say timber wolves. Selective breeding has eliminated information. Interestingly enough, you can breed just about any domesticated dog with another.

[odinata]

@circusOFprecision

Lets ASSUME?

So we aren't going to use science?

[circusOFprecision]

@odinata

Are you asking yourself? Because it seems to me that beggars can't be choosers. You throw out assumptions all of the time, so I don't feel you have the right to nit pick. Besides, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, and it still wasn't good enough.

[odinata]

@circusOFprecision

I know you can't stay civil, circusfreak.

That doesn't bother me.

You will slink away soon.....I've never been the first to stop providing scientifically honest answers....

[circusOFprecision]

@odinata

You haven't provided a single accurate answer to me, EVER. Selective breeds of dogs by definition have less genetic information that mixed breeds, which have less information than dogs. It's what happens through selective breeding. Certain traits are selected, while others are deleted from the gene pool. You have no idea what you are talking about on any of this. You just blindly march forward in an all out effort to defend evolution and "science" at the cost of your intellect.

[circusOFprecision]

...less information than wolves.

[odinata]

@circusOFprecision

"Chihuahuas have far less genetic information than say timber wolves"

Why doesn't ANY examination of the genome indicate this baseless YEC assertion?

[circusOFprecision]

@odinata

They do have less alleles, it's a fact. All you need to do is research selective breeding. Far less, maybe I'm exaggerating, but definitely less. That is why if you breed dogs too closely related for several generations, their offspring tend to be unfit for survival. Why didn't you try to address my point about Sanford? Same old tactics? Start crap and run.

[odinata]

@circusOFprecision

Right here circusclown.

I've never run from a YEC yet.

How many alleles does a chihuahua have?

[circusOFprecision]

@odinata

I don't know how many they have. But I do know it's less than the timber wolf. Go check it out for yourself, figure this thing out and get back to me later.

[odinata]

@circusOFprecision

You are making assertions, circusclown, but you aren't providing any FACTS to corroborate them.

This means that you lose.

NO,dogs don't have less genetic information than wolves.

"They do have less alleles, it's a fact" is, alas, NOT a fact.....

[circusOFprecision]

@odinata

Yes it is, go discover it for yourself. Selective breeding causes information to be lost. Damn, I knew you were just shilling for your religion, but I thought your ignorance was just to piss people off. Now I realize that you truly are mentally retarded when it comes to the science you misrepresent. Well, no wonder. Enjoy reveling in your stupidity.

[odinata]

@circusOFprecision

You can't seem to provide ANY evidence for your assertions.

Simply saying "yes it is" isn't an accurate answer, circusclown.

If you have facts relating to this, posit them here.

Now.

Calling me names isn't going substitute for a number that supports your YEC religious opinions....

[circusOFprecision]

@odinata

You asserted the opposite, yet you gave me no scientific evidence. A little hypocritical don't you think? But yes, I'm right. It's simple. Individuals don't contain all of the alleles of the overall human population because they come from sub-populations that don't interbreed with the larger human population, hence the races we see. Now just take that same idea and put it on steroids, because that is what artificial selection basically is.

[odinata]

@circusOFprecision

I asserted no such thing.

I said dogs and wolves were related.

YOU made the assertion that dogs have fewer alleles than wolves, but you seem to unable to back that.

[circusOFprecision]

@odinata

What? I see what your problem is. You have absolutely no communication skills, comprehension skills, or any inkling of ability when it comes to articulating ideas. I assumed that dogs and wolves were related. Then I showed you that there is no forward progressing evolutionary advancement in this example. Rather, it's backwards. So yeah, they are probably related. Do you get it yet?

[odinata]

@circusOFprecision

Your assertions don't seem to have any means of verification....

[circusOFprecision]

@odinata

Well, there are plenty of people that disagree with you. I know, I know. You will simply say that only YEC will agree with me. Cool, whatever. You put so much effort into being my shadow. Fine, keep cutting in and commenting all you like. But I won't hold my breath that you will ever actually contribute to the conversation.

[odinata]

@circusOFprecision

"Chihuahuas have far less genetic information than say timber wolves."

You have plenty of insults packed in that tiny skull, but no corroboration.

Why?

[odinata]

@circusOFprecision

"They do have less alleles, it's a fact. "

Why aren't you able to support that claim?

[odinata]

@circusOFprecision

"They do have less alleles, it's a fact."

How many alleles do dogs have, and how many do wolves have.

Provide those, and I will figure out which direction the pointy thingy points.......

[circusOFprecision]

That being said, please help me understand how your example disproves anything Sanford is talking about. I'm trying to grasp your thought process here.

[odinata]

@circusOFprecision

If I am wrong in my assertion that chihuahuas and wolves share blood relation, please show me that proof--and accept (in advance) my sincerest apologies for getting the facts wrong...