Originally Posted by knight31
If you seriously manipulate the genes of dogs in a drastic way, that becomes genetic engineering, not natural selection. Btw even if you tried to breed the largest dogs. You will reach a limit. The dogs won't get bigger and bigger forever. The dogs won't turn into giants, DNA doesn't do that.
Are you mentally retarded? Look at a Great Dane, and then look at a Chihuahua. How drastic of a difference do you want there to be before you are willing to admit that groups can change over time? You are in denial and it is that simple.
Traits in reference to specific behaviors, have no connection to the genetic information and my decision to turn left or right, get angry or happy, has nothing to do with my DNA structure, they are behaviors I choose to engage in and are too complex to be referenced in my genetics. If it was even remotely possible we would lock criminals up before they even committed a crime based on their genetics. There is no chart of what behavior or responses are from what genetics because no such connections exist in science yet. Sorry about your lack of evidence but environment is just as critical as genetics.
I was talking about physical traits and this has nothing to do with anything at all.
Natural selection doesn't work because no variations ever result in added information to DNA to cause any drastic adaptions. Mutations are just that, mutations, not advancement. You can't cut an apple up and get more apple that you started with. Unless you are a evolutionist, in which case you can simply believe in magic, but it still won't work in real life.
DNA is just similar things repeating a great deal. It is actually extremely easy to have a mutation in dna that makes one section longer or add another sequence to it. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. There is entire books of genetic disorders that are caused by things like having extra chromosomes and stuff. If you were correct then genetic disorders wouldn't exist but they clearly do. Most mutations are harmful but a few rare ones are beneficial.
You can't cut an apple and get more apple than you started with but a cell can divide and you get more cells that you started with. In fact that is how people are made up. Don't you know people start from a single cell and that cell divides and divides until you get a more complex organism. What you just said goes against basic biology and how all living things were created. Don't you even understand how humans are born?
You must not understand what the foundation of evolution has to imply for it to be true. No variation could cause the genetics of a fish to mutate into a human. Not even over billions of years.
Yes it can. Not only can it, we know it has for a fact.
You know what is funny is experiments have proven the opposite of what you say, in that they have blinded fruit flies before and tried to change their genetics, only to find they re-grain their sight and the genetics goes back to how it was, rather than advances or does something different, which is what you claim variations can do, but they can't even be passed on cause mutations regress back to the original dna lol.
And you can't mutate something into more complexity, when you throw a grenade at the enemy does it blow them into a person with more legs and arms than they previously had, or does it just blow their body apart? Why do you think that a mutation could add extra complexity. That's like nuking a country and expecting the city to be more complex and civilized after the nuke.
What is with the stupid analogies? It is like a single cell dividing and getting an entire person. How does a single cell divide into a complex living and thinking human being? It happens one cell at a time and they build up on each other. Evolution is a process of tiny changes that build up on them self over extremely long periods of time.
E. coli long-term evolution experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
lol is that the best you can find. A Bacterial experiment from 1988 in which nothing significant happened. The bacteria remained bacteria, as expected.
out of the millions of mutations in that only 10 or 20 had any kind of effect you could measure, and it still didn't lead to any significant change that meant anything. All the mutations really did was damage the DNA, that's the only effect because that's what mutations are. How can you think this experiment is solid proof that we evolved from fish is pretty lame. It's just one failed experiment, out of so many.
There are thousands of examples, most deal with plants and bacteria or small insects because evolution takes an extremely long time. You can't do it with humans because it would take tens of thousands of years to get noticeable results.
As for the results, how about you try reading them? You keep telling me things can't change but they are all different from each other. They all produce asexually, which means they should all be identical to each other. The fact that they are all different proves there are changing mutations in them. Just because the changes don't seem impressive to you, doesn't mean they are not changing.
You claim you know science but this is where you prove you have no idea what you are talking about. Any changes are scientifically important. No scientist would ever say a change doesn't matter because it isn't flashy or impressive. You are just ignoring the data that disproves your claim.
Now think about what we know about DNA, and you can safely say that there is no chance that natural selection could have possibly built us in the history that the earth has existed for. Not even over trillions of years is there even a significantly remote chance that natural selection could have caused us to grow from nothing, to fish, to monkeys, to humans. By pure calculation of probability of what we do know, that is not even a statistical chance that it might happen. It would be like winning the lottery thousands of millions of times in a row straight. That's the kind of odds that you have faith in. There is not enough time since the earth existed, for us to even evolve through that process. As per your failed experiment they couldn't even get bacteria to change into anything. Infact you can't get something from nothingness. That simple logic alone shoots down all the work evolutionist have ever done (most of it fraud) and the more they are trying to verify their theory the more it's disproving it.
You don't know the probability of that, you are just pulling random numbers out of your ass and no one here is buying them. If you take the bacteria in that experiment I talked about, it goes through 2273 generations per year. Life began 3.4 million years ago. Which means the bacteria would go through 7,728,200,000,000 generations. If only one mutation out of a million was successfully passed on, then the final generation would have 7,728,200 different mutations than the original. In other words it would be anything even remotely close to what it was originally.
You seem to totally fail to grasp the large numbers and amount of time involved in this. The fact that you think bacteria would evolve into an animal after 22 years kind of proves it. It takes thousands and thousands of years and the fact that there are changes and mutations shown in almost every generation proves evolution.
|
|
Bookmarks