Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Eating Paleo, But Don't Believe in Evolution?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by KimchiNinja View Post
    Also somewhat related to this time, time exists. Time is simple but also complex. But according to Derpamix time and change thru time don't exist.
    You truly are one of the rudest and worthlest people on this forum.

    Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Eureka5280 View Post
      Actually if I've understood Derp's argument correctly, he has described the mechanism - his position is that micro-evolution is due to expression of recessive traits that were always a part of a species' genetic makeup, not a random mutation. This mechanism would allow for selective pressure to express or suppress traits and cause physical changes in a species over time but would not allow a species to change completely into another.

      I have nowhere near the knowledge of evolution or genetics to begin to comment on the validity of that argument, but I think that's what he is saying. (Sorry if I'm oversimplifying or totally putting incorrect words in your mouth Derpamix.)
      I missed that argument if he made it. Either way it's incorrect. We know random mutations occur. Mutations that are not simply genetic recombination, which would allow expression of recessive genes. It's not even really an explanation for why selection pressures working on said random mutations over time would have some sort of built in stopping point. If there was a stopping point why has nobody discovered it? Never mind the fact that we've actually observed changes that do split into two species.

      In my earlier post I gave an example of chromosomal mutations in a polyploid plant, Tragopogon, that lead to speciation. Polyploidy, the duplication of genes, has been a strong driver in plant evolution. He mistakenly tried to use "genetic drift", which describes a changing frequency of genes in a given population, to discredit the fact that speciation occurs at all. He is apparently unaware that genetic drift is actually a mechanism of speciation.

      Comment


      • KimChi, I don't know if you were joking or not but dog breeding is an example of artificial selection working on the genetic diversity of a wolf not evolution at work. We're not "evolving" dogs we're breeding them. We've arbitrarily separated them into subspecies but they can mate and produce fertile offspring from the first generation. And they do. Domestic dog genes are frequently found in wild wolf populations. I've read that black wolves are a direct result of this. I wouldn't put my life on it but I heard it in passing and found it interesting.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by 0Angel0 View Post
          finches and pigeons are all the same species and every Biologist knows this
          Nooooo they aren't.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by oceangrl View Post
            You truly are one of the rudest and worthlest people on this forum.

            Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk
            really? cause i've seen ruder

            maybe kimchi is force-mutating to more easily adapt to his/her surroundings
            beautiful
            yeah you are

            Baby if you time travel back far enough you can avoid that work because the dust won't be there. You're too pretty to be working that hard.
            lol

            Comment


            • Originally posted by 0Angel0 View Post
              KimChi, I don't know if you were joking or not but dog breeding is an example of artificial selection working on the genetic diversity of a wolf not evolution at work. We're not "evolving" dogs we're breeding them. We've arbitrarily separated them into subspecies but they can mate and produce fertile offspring from the first generation. And they do. Domestic dog genes are frequently found in wild wolf populations. I've read that black wolves are a direct result of this. I wouldn't put my life on it but I heard it in passing and found it interesting.
              I watched a documentary that stated some Europeans had up to 3% Neanderthal DNA. So would that make us the same species but different breeds?
              And we have bred some dogs so they can't reproduce with each other, can't imagine a chihuahua x Great Dane

              Comment


              • Originally posted by bloodorchid View Post
                really? cause i've seen ruder

                maybe kimchi is force-mutating to more easily adapt to his/her surroundings
                Maybe I am in a sensitive mood. Just seems like nothing but negative crap comes from her/him. Especially when it comes to USA.

                Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk

                Comment


                • Originally posted by oceangrl View Post
                  Maybe I am in a sensitive mood. Just seems like nothing but negative crap comes from her/him. Especially when it comes to USA.

                  ETA: I do remember one person who was ruder. Usually only when he was provoked though.

                  Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk


                  Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk

                  Comment


                  • You mean dirlot? Lol


                    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
                    ------
                    HCLF: lean red meat, eggs, low-fat dairy, bone broth/gelatin, fruits, seafood, liver, small amount of starch (oatmeal, white rice, potatoes, carrots), small amount of saturated fat (butter/ghee/coconut/dark chocolate/cheese).

                    My Journal: gelatin experiments, vanity pictures, law school rants, recipe links


                    Food blog: GELATIN and BONE BROTH recipes

                    " The best things in life are free and the 2nd best are expensive!" - Coco Chanel

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Hannakb View Post
                      I watched a documentary that stated some Europeans had up to 3% Neanderthal DNA. So would that make us the same species but different breeds?
                      And we have bred some dogs so they can't reproduce with each other, can't imagine a chihuahua x Great Dane
                      i've seen pics of offspring from weiner dogs (yes that's the proper latin terminology) and golden retrievers iirc. they CAN cross, they're all dogs, but some breeds need medical intervention to give birth safely

                      Originally posted by oceangrl View Post
                      Maybe I am in a sensitive mood. Just seems like nothing but negative crap comes from her/him. Especially when it comes to USA.

                      Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk
                      every time you see kimchi just grab a bud light and turn on some toby keith to offset the 'down with usa'ism
                      beautiful
                      yeah you are

                      Baby if you time travel back far enough you can avoid that work because the dust won't be there. You're too pretty to be working that hard.
                      lol

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by bloodorchid View Post

                        every time you see kimchi just grab a bud light and turn on some toby keith to offset the 'down with usa'ism
                        Okay you now just won " funniest post ever".

                        Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk

                        Comment


                        • yes! what do i win?!

                          please say a tiara please say a tiara please say a tiara
                          beautiful
                          yeah you are

                          Baby if you time travel back far enough you can avoid that work because the dust won't be there. You're too pretty to be working that hard.
                          lol

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by bloodorchid View Post
                            yes! what do i win?!

                            please say a tiara please say a tiara please say a tiara
                            Totally a tiara. For reals..:-$

                            Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by bloodorchid View Post
                              i've seen pics of offspring from weiner dogs (yes that's the proper latin terminology) and golden retrievers iirc. they CAN cross, they're all dogs, but some breeds need medical intervention to give birth safely
                              I personally wouldn't call that successful breeding. Or smart.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by 0Angel0 View Post
                                I missed that argument if he made it. Either way it's incorrect. We know random mutations occur. Mutations that are not simply genetic recombination, which would allow expression of recessive genes. It's not even really an explanation for why selection pressures working on said random mutations over time would have some sort of built in stopping point. If there was a stopping point why has nobody discovered it? Never mind the fact that we've actually observed changes that do split into two species.

                                In my earlier post I gave an example of chromosomal mutations in a polyploid plant, Tragopogon, that lead to speciation. Polyploidy, the duplication of genes, has been a strong driver in plant evolution. He mistakenly tried to use "genetic drift", which describes a changing frequency of genes in a given population, to discredit the fact that speciation occurs at all. He is apparently unaware that genetic drift is actually a mechanism of speciation.
                                Eureka is right, about some of what I've said, other things you have cherrypicked in order to make it seem like my argument is weaker than it is, but I've exhausted most of these things in my various posts strewn out in this thread. What you've described is not speciation, but you're still not understanding. Your problem is you're clearly ignoring forms of genetic science. Are you aware of the Hardy Weinberg principle? Hybridization also can cause you to lose polymorphisms because the Hardy Weinberg principle doesn't apply to gene flow and migrant polymorphisms become fixed. If all existing clusters hybridized we'd be left with only one cluster rather than many. Genuine evolution requires new genes into the gene-pool of a species. A re-assembly of what is already there is not evolution, it is a very small(micro) change in the grand scheme of things. If two variations can no longer interbreed, they have become more limited in their gene pool, and more restricted in its ability to manage its environment; hence the above theory of hybridizing clusters.

                                You'll argue mutational change, but this isn't a normal variational reshuffling of the DNA code, but an actual change in one tiny item in the code information. Are you aware of how vastly complex one tiny pin of DNA coding is, yet you postulate that, defying all conventional laws of genetics and DNA, that several of these tiny variations over time will add up to one large one that would mean speciation. Do you not understand that everything you're implying is not an example of a large change? You argue that these variations in Mendelian genetics is evolution. You're wrong. To assert this means you have an absolute lack of knowledge in genetics and this subject. You assert things with such fact that you ignore not even evolutionists support this fact; Lewontin for example, which he explains that natural selection cannot occur if the species does not already have the trait, and that it operates essentially to enable the organisms to maintain their state of adaptation rather than to improve it. It does not explain evolution, nor as Rich points out, the origin of the species. This is foolish. If your theory is correct, ponder this; why are there distinct species at all? Surely, all these minor changes across species alters them enough to have one large change or no distinct species. Is this not proof of our DNA wall, which, you say has no barrier and no limits.

                                What does every example you have listed have in common? Have you not looked at the genetic difference between the species you're saying have vastly changed? I would bet my money on no. With this, you ignore several theories, either intentionally, or unintentionally, and give very simplistic and horribly thought out arguments towards evolution, one key theory is ignoring the DNA limitation that allows all sorts of variation between it, and regression toward the mean. With all your vast knowledge of evolution, you've obviously ran into this theory, yes? Want to explain it? This plant and animal breeders all run into this same problem, a literal wall in DNA preventing its transcendence beyond.

                                Another thing, which you ignorantly, and erroneously allude to is polyploidy; which is a variation in the numbers of chromosomes and rearrangements of chromosomal material. This isn't proof of evolution, only if you're myopic and brainwashed by Darwinian propaganda, it does not produce anything beyond the limits already established. We know normal cells are diploid, with double sets of similar chromosomes, and that reproductive cells are haploid(though you might not know this judging by your responses), with only one set. Haploid male and female cells unite in zygote to form the diploid cell. What you're referring to, found in plants but very rarely in animals, is three or more haploid chromosomes together in an organism. These breeders can produce polyploid in plants with chemicals like colchicine. Then you arrogantly assume that because this plant has now taken on many more chromosomes, and inherited traits of another plant, that it has somehow evolved into an entire different species. Nope, sorry, this did not occur, and if I weren't dealing with clearly people who have only read one book on the subject, I wouldn't even have to explain this. You're again just referring to the same genetic theories which you've routinely ignored. What about the polyploidy rodents which you ignored probably because they still clearly look like rodents just ones that have inherited undesirable traits.

                                Keep on keeping on that these insignificant changes in DNA are grand altering macro changes or evolution, if you new how complicated the DNA actually was, and were aware of the barrier, you wouldn't be posting such absurd things. Don't cherrypick my posts next time, lest I put all of it in one large post that touches up on everything. You're the one being intellectually dishonest.
                                Last edited by Derpamix; 11-03-2013, 09:21 AM.
                                Make America Great Again

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X