The Flood
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#121 Jul 28, 2012
Shubee wrote:
An astoundingly powerful argument for the theory of devolution is the PBS special: "Pedigree Dogs Exposed." The program description states: "Purebred dogs and related health issues from inbreeding are discussed." This program clearly proves that speciation in dogs produces an undeniable and directly observable generational increase in genetic diseases, cancers, infertility and expected extinction, all due to inbreeding. As I have written, "The logic is undeniably correct. Specialization is speciation. The generalists are more robust. Therefore speciation implies devolution."
Watch the movie here: everythingimportant.org/SDA/viewtopic.php...
"Heterosis the general tendency for the hybrid progeny of most species to be more robust than their inbred parents."
The very definition of heterosis supports the theory of devolution!
The only time "devolution" is correct is when it pinches from the theory of evolution after the fact. It then ignores reality by throwing in religious apologetics for TEH FALL! In the case of doggy-eugenics my dear Eugene, is that it's a deliberate attempt at minimizing genetic diversity to produce particular desired characteristics, the consequence of that is a reduction of robustness in some breeds (which is why some breeds are illegal). Cross-breeding introduces more genetic variety into the mix hence increases robustness.

This is in contrast to natural selection, where speciation is the natural byproduct of increased genetic variety. This increase in genetic variance is observed, but like natural selection, quite theologically inconvenient and therefore ignored by religious apologists such as yourself. Genomic degeneration is only a problem for very small populations, such as some big cats whose species have been hunted to near extinction for example. In the case of humans however our population has been increasing steadily, and while genetic problems can and do occur, it's currently more than compensated with due to population size and variance.

SO.

Have you had any luck convincing the evolutionist conspiracy chemists in providing you with the evidence you need to *retroactively* use to prove your global flood yet?

.

Thought so.

“Transitional Molecular Fossils”

Since: Dec 06

Somewhere in Penn's Woods

#122 Jul 30, 2012
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>That's a very important result. It proves that speciation reduces robustness, which is my definition of devolution.
No it does not.

Sorry, but you cannot extrapolate this into "devolution". Does the production of new traits beyond the range of ordinary parental variation always equate to "new species"? New proteins, new functions, new info equals "new species"? Yes, heterosis is biologically significant in the evolution of species by providing a heterozygote advantage in naturally occurring hybrids. Although heterosis is a genome-wide event where the phenotypic effects involve the action of many genes, the genetic mechanism/specific genes controlling heterosis are unknown. Is the effect achieved due to the combination of alleles at multiple loci masking the effects of deleterious recessive alleles of the parents? Is there a synergistic outperformance of heterozygous alleles at the same locus or a combination of loci? Or are the two loci that complement each other tightly linked? You can extrapolate this to "devolution"? Don't think so.

What of mutations that can be reversed by subsequent mutations?. A DNA base can be turned from an A to a G and then back to an A again. Mutations can cause both a gain and a loss in information. If a mutation that results in a loss of information, the reverse mutation must result in its gain. How does that fit in with "devolution"?
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#123 Jul 30, 2012
Katydid wrote:
What of mutations that can be reversed by subsequent mutations?. A DNA base can be turned from an A to a G and then back to an A again. Mutations can cause both a gain and a loss in information. If a mutation that results in a loss of information, the reverse mutation must result in its gain. How does that fit in with "devolution"?
It's like you never read of the empirical foundations to Sanford's genomic degeneration theorem. You really do need to cease parroting your mantra and understand what you're commenting on.
everythingimportant.org/genome.pdf
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#124 Jul 30, 2012
The Dude wrote:
And apparently no-one, not even people qualified in the relevant fields, understand you.
I think Dr. John C. Sanford understands my review of his genomic degeneration theorem.
everythingimportant.org/genome.pdf

“Transitional Molecular Fossils”

Since: Dec 06

Somewhere in Penn's Woods

#125 Jul 30, 2012
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>It's like you never read of the empirical foundations to Sanford's genomic degeneration theorem. You really do need to cease parroting your mantra and understand what you're commenting on.
everythingimportant.org/genome.pdf
This does not answer my question(s) nor does it offer an explanation.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#126 Jul 30, 2012
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>It's like you never read of the empirical foundations to Sanford's genomic degeneration theorem. You really do need to cease parroting your mantra and understand what you're commenting on.
everythingimportant.org/genome.pdf
Well, it's not like YOU'VE not been parroting Sanford's genomic degeneration theorem.....

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#127 Jul 30, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>Well, it's not like YOU'VE not been parroting Sanford's genomic degeneration theorem.....
...OVER, AND OVER, AND OVER....
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#128 Jul 30, 2012
Katydid wrote:
<quoted text>
This does not answer my question(s) nor does it offer an explanation.
Sure it does. Page 2. Like cards, shuffling genetic code can always get you back to where you started. But what's the chance of that? Do the recommended experiment. Again, page 2. Try to improve a textbook by shuffling words. See if you can improve meaningful communication by doing that.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#129 Jul 31, 2012
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>I think Dr. John C. Sanford understands my review of his genomic degeneration theorem.
That's because he's a religious apologist. We're not interested in apologetics, we're interested in science.

Ya know, that thing you don't know diddly about.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#130 Jul 31, 2012
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Sure it does. Page 2. Like cards, shuffling genetic code can always get you back to where you started. But what's the chance of that? Do the recommended experiment. Again, page 2. Try to improve a textbook by shuffling words. See if you can improve meaningful communication by doing that.
I already addressed this. Your premise relies on analogy. Your analogy is flawed. In the meantime by continually spamming us with your repetitious spam and simply claiming anyone who disagrees doesn't understand rather than engaging their points, you're still ignoring previous issues which have already destroyed the house of cards your BS is built on.

So them mean old Darwinist chemists get back to ya yet?

Didn't think so.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#131 Jul 31, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I already addressed this.
You haven't addressed it by performing any experiments. "The fundamental principle of science, the definition almost, is this: the sole test of the validity of any idea is experiment." Richard P. Feynman.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#132 Jul 31, 2012
The Dude wrote:
Your premise relies on analogy. Your analogy is flawed.
That's just a religious belief of yours. Where is your experimental evidence?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#133 Jul 31, 2012
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>You haven't addressed it by performing any experiments. "The fundamental principle of science, the definition almost, is this: the sole test of the validity of any idea is experiment." Richard P. Feynman.
No, YOU haven't addressed it by performing any experiments. You just took the word of a reality-denying Young Earth fundie. I pointed out your simple analogy does not deal with reality. If reality matched your simply analogy then maybe you'd have a case.

But you didn't.

So you don't.

.

Note also how you're still leaving many other issues unresolved. I suspect this is not a coincidence.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#134 Jul 31, 2012
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>That's just a religious belief of yours. Where is your experimental evidence?
What's that? Evidence you say? I don't need to supply evidence because it's all being held back by the evil Darwinist evolutionist chemist conspiracy!!!

(ahem)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#135 Jul 31, 2012
Luckily for me though I'm part of that big massive conspiracy and can provide the evidence at any time. Of course then you just re-spam your linkys and claim it actually supports your BS instead, we come along and deconstruct it, your inability to debate forces you to take the "You don't understand science!" ad-hom/projection route, we then point out you got zip and so you ask us for evidence which we all know you're not going to pay attention to anyway. And around in circles you go.

So uh, what's all the hubbub, bub?

“Transitional Molecular Fossils”

Since: Dec 06

Somewhere in Penn's Woods

#136 Jul 31, 2012
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Sure it does. Page 2. Like cards, shuffling genetic code can always get you back to where you started. But what's the chance of that? Do the recommended experiment. Again, page 2. Try to improve a textbook by shuffling words. See if you can improve meaningful communication by doing that.
.

Cop out.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#137 Jul 31, 2012
Katydid wrote:
<quoted text>.
Cop out.
You see. Reading really does pay off.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#138 Jul 31, 2012
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>You see. Reading really does pay off.
You should try it sometime.

You're still avoiding a shedload of problems with your claims, Shoob. Don't worry, they'll always be there when you get back.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#139 Aug 1, 2012
The Dude wrote:
You're still avoiding a shedload of problems with your claims, Shoob. Don't worry, they'll always be there when you get back.
The cowardly chicken is you. Every child mathematician knows that a large number of successive small scrambles of text containing information will eventually produce gibberish.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#140 Aug 1, 2012
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>The cowardly chicken is you.
Except we've dealt with everything you claimed. While you have CONSTANTLY avoided everything which shoots your claims to poop.

If there was a global flood, how come we're still alive?
Shubee wrote:
Every child mathematician knows that a large number of successive small scrambles of text containing information will eventually produce gibberish.
Gee, that's nice. Except that's not a math thing, it's a language thing. Newsflash, shoob. DNA is not text. It does not operate like the English language. Scientists have been known to use language and codes as an ANALOGY, but you have taken the analogy too far. So far in fact that you use an analogy IN PLACE of evidence.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 min Science 66,516
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 7 min SaviorSelf 28,496
What does the theory of evolution state? 35 min pshun2404 118
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! 1 hr MADRONE 84
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 3 hr Dogen 3,439
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 5 hr Subduction Zone 160,863
Why isn't intelligent design really science? 8 hr Subduction Zone 35
More from around the web