29 Mar 11
Originally posted by PenguinSeriously? Did he say that? How does he explain Huskies and other dog breeds from cold climates having long fur (and clearly benefiting from it).
Kelly's sticking point seems to be that he does not accept that a mutation giving longer/shorter fur can change the likelyhood of an organism surviving a colder/warmer climate.
29 Mar 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadWell that is what I took from his reply to Proper Knob's post. I have asked him to confirm it. Let's see if that is really his position. If it is, maybe it can be discussed in another thread while this one continues to find where other RJHind and Karoly's agreement stops.
Seriously? Did he say that? How does he explain Huskies and other dog breeds from cold climates having long fur (and clearly benefiting from it).
Whether Kelly is able to justify this position (if I have understood it correctly) or whether it is a sensible position, is not really important and discussing it further here will just distract the thread again.
Kelly?
--- Penguin.
29 Mar 11
Originally posted by shavixmirWhat is this something else , if it was not God.?
Dear oh dear.
1a. The universe did not come from nothing. Nothing does not exist. There always was something. The universe as we know it came from something else.
1b. Doesn't the second law of thermal dynamics, then, mean that God had to have been created as well?
2. Is God a living thing? No, then he can't have created living things (as the proof ...[text shortened]... gh up against evolution automatically excludes the possibility of God existing.
Weird uh?
29 Mar 11
Originally posted by RJHindsMaybe we could give Kelly till 2200GMT tomorrow and then move on with the thread, assuming we have reached his stumbling block and he cannot accept the proposition that a physical variation (eg longer hair) can give an organism and its decendants an advantage in survival and reproduction. Karoly and RJHind have already said they are ok with this proposition.
God is Spirit and the creator of the heavens and the earth and
all that is in them.
I'd really like this thread to stay on topic.
--- Penguin.
29 Mar 11
Originally posted by RJHindsAs suggested in the Christian Bible (as I believe this is what you subscribe to). Why is Christianity correct and all the other religions wrong?
God is Spirit and the creator of the heavens and the earth and
all that is in them.
Let's assume that we all agree with intelligent design. Why the extra leap of faith in believing it is Christianity correct over everything else?
30 Mar 11
Originally posted by JS357No, I sorry, I guess I didn't use the right words to get across
Quote: "[b]God is Spirit and the creator of the heavens and the earth and
all that is in them."
So God is not in them?[/b]
the correct meaning. I am not a very good communicator.
When I said "all that is in them", I meant the other things he
created that were in the heavens and the earth, like the stars,
planets, moons, angels, plants, animals,etc. But since God is
Spirit, He is not limited to the heavens and the earth. He is also
outside the heavens and the earth.
30 Mar 11
Originally posted by RJHindsRight we'll continue and hopefully i won't delete it all this time.
Yes. No disagreement.
Speciation, the evolutionary process by which new biological species arrive is the next section here. This i imagine will be the sticking point, there is more misunderstanding about this concept than any other in evolutionary theory, from creationists anyhow.
Imagine our group of mammals all living together in one big group. Any mutations which arise that are beneficial will be 'selected' by nature and over time will be passed through the group over the subsequent generations. Now imagine that the group gets split in two, it could be as a result of an earthquake, flood or any other natural event. But the group is split in two forever, and this is the important concept to understand here. Whereas before we had one big group now we have two, for convenience i'll call them g1 and g2.
Now the group is in two, it means that any mutations which arise in g1 will stay in g1, any mutations which arise in g2 will stay in g2. It's key to remember how a mutation arises, it's the changing of code in an organisms DNA, basically the 'instructions' get altered. Now the group is split into two, the DNA of each collective group will now change independently of each other. They have gone their own separate ways.
If we imagine that each group ends up in very different habitats eg. g1 lives in a wet and cold habitat, g2 lives in a dry and hot habitat. The selective pressures for each group are at opposite ends of the spectrum, mutations which might be beneficial for g1 in their cold and wet habitat are going to be useless for g2 living in their dry and hot climate, the same also applies the other way round.
This is the crucial part for speciation to occur now. If after a significantly long period of time, ie hundreds of thousands of years, both groups were to meet up again, we would find that the DNA of each group had changed so much that members of each group would be unable to mate with each other because their DNA had changed so much since they split as a group. Speciation has now occurred, their genes are unable to be shared.
Difficulties?
30 Mar 11
Originally posted by Proper KnobI think I should point out that the definition of species does not require that the two groups be unable to breed, only that they typically do not do so in their natural environment. Of course this leads to grey areas where it is quite difficult to decide what is a species and what is just a sub-species. But it is important to remember that the category 'species' is man made and merely used for classification, it is not an inherent property of any given life form.
Difficulties?
What prevents interbreeding may be genetic (quite often a different number of chromosomes results in failure to breed or infertile offspring) or physical (no sexual attraction, or size differences (think very large dog and very small dog).
As examples to think about:
1. Dogs, dingoes, coyotes, and golden jackals all interbreed although they are different species. They cannot interbreed with some other canines (foxes, African wild dogs, bat-eared foxes or raccoon dog).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canid_hybrid
2. Lions and Tigers can interbreed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger
3. Horses and donkeys can have offspring (mules) but they are usually infertile due to the different number of chromosomes horses and donkeys have.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule
It must also be noted that when two species interbreed, the offspring can be quite different depending on which species was the male and which the female.
30 Mar 11
Originally posted by Penguin"In what way is that not evolution? Success in breeding is the selection mechanism of the evolutionary process: those with traits that improve their chance of breeding (eg resistance to a desease) are more likely to breed in the presence of that deseae than those without such traits. This is exactly what evolution is!
Ok, I think we have a small sticking point here. This is Proper Knob's thread so I apologise for butting in.
[b]If we had a disease strike a population those with immunity would
survive those without it would die off, and most if not all the following generations
would have the immunity, but that is not due to evolution, just breeding.
In what wa ...[text shortened]... bad enough that the short-haired siblings suffered and long haired one coped?
--- Penguin.[/b]
However, I think there is a danger here of getting sidetracked. "
No, nothing evolves here if the resistance was already in the population! It was
more of shifting out that part of the population that didn't have the resistance
because nothing changes except that portion that had the resistance now is the
larger part of the population. There wasn't anything added to the population it did
not already have, aquiring a new resistance may something to talk about, but if
our bodies are built to do that, that maybe evidence for a good design as well.
Kelly
30 Mar 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe same way I think there are more white rabbits in colder climates with snow,
Seriously? Did he say that? How does he explain Huskies and other dog breeds from cold climates having long fur (and clearly benefiting from it).
they live better there so there are more of them, rabbits that stand out are
easier to pick off in the wild verses those that blend in.
Kelly