Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum hello my name is paul

I would like to introduce you to a set of
transitional breeds portrayed in skeletal form.



these dog breed's are modern.
however they clearly represent what evolution should easily
be capable of producing , as dog breeding has produced , pictured above.

that's all we ask.

here is the transition from grey wolf to modern day
domestic dog breeds



they are all dog's





a dog in sheep's clothing is still a dog!



the moral majority of these fact's are !

they didn't evolve

your so right Mike.

they are all the same species , they did not evolve.

but they did transition from breed to breed.

we cant look at a wolf and say it looks like a poodle.

but we know the poodle was bred from a wolf.

the differences are great as far as appearances are concerned.

but they are the same species.

no evolution involved.



they are all horses , just like they are all dogs.

just because you change the name of a horse every time
it breeds a different looking horse it does not mean that
it isn't still a horse.

they are all the same species , just different breeds.



think of it as time elapsed evolution , only evolution
isn't what you think it is.

Are you saying breeding isn't the same as evolution?

Can I ask you another interesting question Paul do you eat pork?

Well, That seems to be the sort of thing that creationists claim. The fact is that breeding is a clear example of "survival of the fittest". In the case of selective breeding it is just that "fittest" doesn't necessarily represent what would be best for the breed in the wild. In many cases breeders deliberately choose characteristics that would be detrimental to species living in the wild. But they are selected for some reason that seems good to people. The fact is that some breeds of dogs, for example, make good examples of separate species. There is no way that a Chihuahua could naturally breed with a Saint Bernard. That could be counted as making them be separate species, so we now have a human guided evolution from basic dogs to 2 separate species. And the 2 species will continue to be successful, that is that they will continue to exist, as long people want them that way.

Bill Gil

the above is not a st benard chihuahua mix , but I like the pictue.

the cute little fluffy puppy above is a st benard / boxer mix

you can breed any two dogs.

I wouldn't want your gentile or gentle readers to believe
thing's that are non truth's so I looked it up on the internet.

of course it would have to be a male chihuahua.

I don't think a female chihuahua could carry the puppy.

but a female st bernard could.

Yes!

there's nothing better than a big pot of collard green's and
hog jowels.

every day when I wake up in the morning , I fry up
several sausage patties and a couple of eggs sunny side up
with a few pieces of lightly buttered toast with a thick coating of apple butter.

or I fix several pieces of french toast heavily coated
with 3 eggs and a sprinkle of ground cinnamon and I smother them with a ludicrous coating of butter and thick maple syrup.

and I brew a cup of strong coffee mixed with sugar and non dairy creamer.

It certainly isn't Darwinian evolution by natural selection. Selective breeding is goal driven (which natural selection isn't) and often leads to attributes that would weaken the survival prospects of the species in it's natural environment. One might call it design, but not always intelligent.

HAPPY NEW YEAR

The reason I ask the question is I am trying to work your beliefs out you seem to take some things literally out of the bible but not others.

Try reading Leviticus 11 here is a link to the King James version to save you getting your bible out

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Leviticus-Chapter-11/

Your correct answer if you believe the bible or torah literally should have been I don't eat pork because I am commanded so ... it is why Jews don't eat pork because it's part of their bible.

So how do you decide which parts of your bible you take literally and which you don't Paul?

Now before I catch out with breeding you might want to hit the internet and bible and see what the bible says about breeding ... get back to me when you are ready to dicuss it.

I will give you a start from the book genesis which you take literraly read Genesis 1:24-25 and 30:31-43 carefully.

When you are ready with your reading lets see what the book of genesis makes of Drosophila synthetica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drosophila_synthetica) because your own bible and genesis is about to cause your argument grief.

I thought you were the religious one not me but even I know this stuff.

Correct redewenur in science they are the same mechanism with a different driver doing the selection but it's interesting under religion and in the bible how they deal with breeding.

You will see :-)

so , I suppose that all the failed experiments that evolution claims were not due
to evolution then , correct?

all the failed experiments must have been intelligently designed
is that what you are claiming , because that certainly is what it sounds like.

so we should expect to find these supreme species throughout the planet that were better equipped to survive.



I see what you mean however , about survival , the
larger elephant above was expensive to feed and did not
perform as well as the elephants that survived below.

they were easily seen by hunters of meat and clothing
and the smaller ones below survived because they evolved
to be weaker and smaller.

Have you done your reading

Genesis 1:24-25
King James Version (KJV)

24: And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25: And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.


So there are "KINDS" of animals now your homework how does genesis define what "KINDS" of animals means?


You may want to read the part in Genesis 30:31-43 about how Jacob was the first animal breeder

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+30%3A31-43&version=KJV

So you could breed and select things even under the bible.


So now everything relies on how the bible defines "KINDS" of animals so I need you to tell me how you read the bible because there are three ways depending on how you read the bible.

Your very selective about how you read the bible so I need your view.

Perhaps I will give you a start

Leviticus 19:19
New International Version (NIV)

19 “Keep my decrees.

“‘Do not mate different kinds of animals.

“‘Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.

“‘Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.


So I need to know what you define as a "kind of animal" and of coarse you don't wear clothing with two different material such as cotton/polyester do you Paul because you obey your GODS law.

There is no most supreme species evolution simply says survival of the fitest it is you creationists who have some sort of supremacy order.

In many ways science would say bacteria are the most successful thing they have been around the longest from what we can determine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanobacteria
=>Stromatolites of fossilized oxygen-producing cyanobacteria have been found from 2.8 billion years ago,[12] possibly as old as 3.5 billion years ago.

If conditions change like climate the species that can evolve to exploit the new conditions will be the best at surviving.

Highly specialized species tend to be among the least likely to survive any changes and so often the least fit to survive. Most of the animals on the extinction list are highly highly specialised and thus vunerable.

Even if you do not believe in evolution please do not confuse "fitness to survive" with "specialised" they are very different things.

As per your post above it's not even an argument it's just blatant stupidity that has nothing to do with evolution and not even remotely what it says.

I'm going to say that "KINDS" means species.

ie... horse , cattle , sheep , snake , lizard , dog , etc...

and

breeds are variations within a species.

ie...german shepherd , boston terrier , labrador etc...

and yes , the breeding of spots , stripes , specles , and colors of sheep was how Jacob
managed to have an income , or to save for his retirement you might say , pretty clever as
he eventually owned everything that his uncle/father in law owned.

http://www.essex1.com/pages/paul/bible32.html

commendable restraint there, Orac, but you're still wasting your time.

that said , I'm clocking out now , see you guys next year!

HAPPY NEW YEAR ALL YOU SCIENTIFIC PAGAN TYPE ATHIEST!

at = being there

heist = to steal

being there to steal


disclaimer or warning:

I removed the video because of the language , so
you might want to turn the volume down.

but here's the link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5jI92Ht99Y

Predictably, I suppose, you would construe it as such. Try, for a moment, to get the idea of intelligent design out of your head. An experiment is a test or investigation carried out by a tester or an investigator. Evolution by natural selection is no such thing.

It's true that physically weaker, smaller species often win through in the evolution process. Two factors play a role: environment, and adaptation to that environment. That's what 'survival of the fittest' means. Read, Paul - it will answer all your queries better than any forum.

So now we have the problem of Leviticus 19:19

Leviticus 19:19
New International Version (NIV)
19 “Keep my decrees.
“‘Do not mate different kinds of animals.
“‘Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
“‘Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.


So species can obviously cross breed even in the bible and we know that from female donkeys mating with male horses and making a mule. Which interestingly comes up even you guessed it in the bible genesis 36:24.


Genesis 36:24
New International Version

24 And these are the children of Zibeon: both Ajah and Anah; this was that Anah that found the mules in the wilderness as he fed the asses of Zibeon his father.

It is also mules in the Hebrew scripts but that causes to many problems to some creationists so they had to rewrite it as donkeys


Genesis 36:24
Today's New International Version (TNIV)

24 The sons of Zibeon:
Aiah and Anah. This is the Anah who discovered the hot springs[a] in the desert while he was grazing the donkeys of his father Zibeon.


So there is a problem I face in your understanding I need two further bits of information

1.) Can "KINDS" cross breed?
2.) If two animals can't even cross breed they are wider than "KINDS" ... correct?

Interesting aside Paul I had to do alot of bible reading in this discussion and I ran across this one

Leviticus 5:1-5
New International Version (NIV)

5 “‘If anyone sins because they do not speak up when they hear a public charge to testify regarding something they have seen or learned about, they will be held responsible.

2 “‘If anyone becomes aware that they are guilty—if they unwittingly touch anything ceremonially unclean (whether the carcass of an unclean animal, wild or domestic, or of any unclean creature that moves along the ground) and they are unaware that they have become unclean, but then they come to realize their guilt; 3 or if they touch human uncleanness (anything that would make them unclean) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt; 4 or if anyone thoughtlessly takes an oath to do anything, whether good or evil (in any matter one might carelessly swear about) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt— 5 when anyone becomes aware that they are guilty in any of these matters, they must confess in what way they have sinned.


Having become aware of the issue of eating wrong foods and possibly wearing wrong clothes you need to confess your sins and stop it ... just a heads up.