Dr Collins, top geneticist, and CHRISTIAN....

[cbirch2]

Those random mutations i posted up i better explain that to you. Do you see how destructive they were to my short question ?Random mutations were no help to my question.

That is how information gets lost or replaced now if that really happened we would all go extinct.

Can you imagine what would happen if information was lost for the heart,kidneys,or brain ?

That is why you should be thankful that God's way of order limits us from too much change,because we would not be here if it happened the way evolutionist claim.

"Can you imagine what would happen if information was lost for the heart,kidneys,or brain"

WHAT DOES THIS STATEMENT HAVE TO DO WITH EVOLUTION?! Are you suggesting that if evolution were right, a mutation causing the loss of some vital information should spread throughout the population before a beneficial one? By what mechanism would that mutation spread through the gene pool? Is the animal without a brain going to reproduce and pass that mutation on? Total idiot post.

 

[Youwerecreated]

1. Mutations are not stimulated by the environment. Thats wrong. Mutations are random. The environment determines which mutations lead to increase reproductive capacity, but it does not create the genes themselves.
2. Animals develop almost entirely due to genetics. After a person is born the environment may shape their personality, but in terms of how an embryos body develops its almost all genetic. This point is useless anyways.
3. Wrong and misleading. Evolution doesnt claim speciation would happen within such a short time frame. We see cumulative adaptations all the time. What is there to possibly stop several mutations from happening?
4. Your mutation rates are wrong and irrelevant. For one, your talking about transcription which is the expression of genes not the duplication of DNA. Second, errors in the replication process happen all the time. They can be any size. Your entire argument hinges on each mutation being a single base when it could be an entire gene or segment of DNA. Not that you understood what that meant.
5. You keep saying this but its false! Information can easily be added to DNA! Genes can be duplicated leading to increased protein expression. Single bases can be added making a different protein. Entire segments of DNA can be added to a genome. Virus's can mutate our DNA. Remember the cancer cell on the last page? Thats how much information can be added extremely easily.

What your point? You seem to have two arguments.

One is that information cannot be added to an organisms genome, which is just blatantly false.

The other is that mutations cannot happen fast enough. It sounds nice when you use big numbers but its wrong. Your simplifying the entire process down to an arithmetic calculation so easy a grade schooler could do it.

Do you understand what adapting means ? these mutations can't be random chance are you serious ?

Darwins finches, what caused them to adapt or to exp Micro-evolution ?

Now i want you to see the effect of mutations.

I will start with (are you friggen kidding)

This is the results of one random mutation then i will do 2 mutatations then 5 then 10


1 Are you friggen kiddinR

2 are you f6igZen kidding

5 arP y3u fjigge8 kidfing

10 arE9soI frIgBen kfdFing

Binary mutations

1 are you frjggen kidding

2 are yoy frigge. kidding

5 ard you frikWen$kiddinW

10 ire yv nriggen kudjYmg

Are you beginning to get the picture ?

The rest you're trying to prove your point through theory again. provide actual evidence not how your theory works. Do you understand actual evidence verses what you read from a book ?

I didn't say information could not be added what me and the good Dr. are saying is the whole time information is being added information is being lost. That information lost is detrimental to neo.

Don't flatter yourself, i will take my lifes exeriences and many Docters that agree with me over a college student.

So now i know for sure you dont even know how natural selection works. I was saying this a while back but you didnt seem to get it. Lol how many doctors do you think agree with me versus you? I guarantee you that the vast majority of degree holding professionals believe in evolution. Especially doctors.

But back to how you dont understand natural selection. The environment does not control the mutation, thats why you dont get. Nothing in the environment actually does the mutating of the genetic material, in terms of natural selection. The environment can induce mutations, but that isnt the type of mutation that natural selection deals with and those mutations generally arent passed on (they arent mutated sperm or egg cells). In natural selection the mutations or variations are random, due to a whole range of phenomena.

Natural selection is how those random mutations influence the organisms competitive advantage. Its about how likely those mutations are to be passed on. The mutations in darwins finches were random. Some mutations allowed for slightly different expressions of the protein BMP4, which plays a major role in skeletal development in the embryo. The mutation any single finch may get is random, so each bird that has a mutation in the expression of BMP4 may have a slightly different shaped beak. The ones with beaks that allow them advantages, like being pointed enough to dig further into trees, allowed them to survive better. They consume more resources, it becomes harder for those without that mutation to survive, and therefore the entire population has evolved.

So you should be able to answer how Natural selection knows the difference between beneficial,neutral ,and harmful mutations ?

If natural selection can't see, how does it know good from bad ?

If natural selection is a natural process, and a non-intelligent process, how would it know to make intelligence through random mutations ?

How would natural selection know that we need hearts,lungs,brains,kidneys,blood,and veins ?

You see your theory depends on chance mutations and natural selection. Natural selection and random mutations can't possibly account for every living organism by chance. That is a bigger leap of faith then believing in a divine creator.

Trust me, i was educated at the University of Arizona,they did not teach me creationism science. I believe they did a good job teaching me what you know but however many moons have pasted since i was in school. But as you can see i stay on top of things so please quit insulting me and yourself in the process.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Again. Apparently using words you dont understand is a silly little word game. Your so smart.

Again purebred organisms are a result of selective breeding by humans. Idc if you dont know what that means. Like i said before, that doesnt mean im playing games it means your stupid.

We controlled which organisms bred together to give us certain traits we like. If you started breeding a pure breed with other breeds it wouldnt be a purebred anymore. Purebreeds are not a natural phenomena. We understand the genetics behind it. They are just homozygous for one trait, and in order to insure the offspring are homozygous as well we mate them with an animal homozygous for the same trait. I dont get how you dont understand this.

Purebred animals are not an example of natural selection or evolution. They are an example of artificial selection. How dont you get that? I hope these words arent too big for you.

Oh boy do you see how you try to spin ? your word games are making you look foolish.

Yes dogs will breed with any dogs that is why if we didn't control their breeding we would have nothing but mutts, with an extremely large gene pool. In the wild most animals keep to themselves that is why your theory is rediculous and this reasoning supports my theory the one you called rediculous.

I don't need to use your terms to explain what i mean. I am sure people reading this thread do understand what i am saying.

Most animals keep to themselves? Thats ridiculous. Your right, my theory hinges on the exact opposite of that. Because in nature no lineage of animals over several generations is a purebred. Are you saying that a purebred in the wild would consciously choose to mate with a purebred rather than another dog? Because thats simply false.

You get a purebred through isolation. You get a purebred by the gene pool getting smaller. The moment a different kind of animal is introduce to the gene pool you begin to get change in the offspring immediately, Bcause of the information that came from both parents through sexual reproduction.

No,have you ever seen a dog turn down a dog in heat ? there have been hybrids between domestic dogs and coyotes and wolves. We have cross breedings between deer in the wild here in Arizona. But they keep to their kind,dogs with dogs,cats with cats deer with deer.

 

[cbirch2]

Do you understand what adapting means ? these mutations can't be random chance are you serious ?

Darwins finches, what caused them to adapt or to exp Micro-evolution ?

Now i want you to see the effect of mutations.

I will start with (are you friggen kidding)

This is the results of one random mutation then i will do 2 mutatations then 5 then 10


1 Are you friggen kiddinR

2 are you f6igZen kidding

5 arP y3u fjigge8 kidfing

10 arE9soI frIgBen kfdFing

Binary mutations

1 are you frjggen kidding

2 are yoy frigge. kidding

5 ard you frikWen$kiddinW

10 ire yv nriggen kudjYmg

Are you beginning to get the picture ?

The rest you're trying to prove your point through theory again. provide actual evidence not how your theory works. Do you understand actual evidence verses what you read from a book ?

I didn't say information could not be added what me and the good Dr. are saying is the whole time information is being added information is being lost. That information lost is detrimental to neo.

Don't flatter yourself, i will take my lifes exeriences and many Docters that agree with me over a college student.

So now i know for sure you dont even know how natural selection works. I was saying this a while back but you didnt seem to get it. Lol how many doctors do you think agree with me versus you? I guarantee you that the vast majority of degree holding professionals believe in evolution. Especially doctors.

But back to how you dont understand natural selection. The environment does not control the mutation, thats why you dont get. Nothing in the environment actually does the mutating of the genetic material, in terms of natural selection. The environment can induce mutations, but that isnt the type of mutation that natural selection deals with and those mutations generally arent passed on (they arent mutated sperm or egg cells). In natural selection the mutations or variations are random, due to a whole range of phenomena.

Natural selection is how those random mutations influence the organisms competitive advantage. Its about how likely those mutations are to be passed on. The mutations in darwins finches were random. Some mutations allowed for slightly different expressions of the protein BMP4, which plays a major role in skeletal development in the embryo. The mutation any single finch may get is random, so each bird that has a mutation in the expression of BMP4 may have a slightly different shaped beak. The ones with beaks that allow them advantages, like being pointed enough to dig further into trees, allowed them to survive better. They consume more resources, it becomes harder for those without that mutation to survive, and therefore the entire population has evolved.

So you should be able to answer how Natural selection knows the difference between beneficial,neutral ,and harmful mutations ?

If natural selection can't see, how does it know good from bad ?

If natural selection is a natural process, and a non-intelligent process, how would it know to make intelligence through random mutations ?

How would natural selection know that we need hearts,lungs,brains,kidneys,blood,and veins ?

You see your theory depends on chance mutations and natural selection. Natural selection and random mutations can't possibly account for every living organism by chance. That is a bigger leap of faith then believing in a divine creator.

Trust me, i was educated at the University of Arizona,they did not teach me creationism science. I believe they did a good job teaching me what you know but however many moons have pasted since i was in school. But as you can see i stay on top of things so please quit insulting me and yourself in the process.

Wow, your posts get dumber and dumber. I love this part:

"So you should be able to answer how Natural selection knows the difference between beneficial,neutral ,and harmful mutations ?

If natural selection can't see, how does it know good from bad ?

If natural selection is a natural process, and a non-intelligent process, how would it know to make intelligence through random mutations ?"

Do you not understand the concept of competitive and reproductive advantage?

This part is very humorous as well:

"How would natural selection know that we need hearts,lungs,brains,kidneys,blood,and veins?".



Extremely stupid. I'm having trouble even coming up with the words to explain what im trying to say now, that was so stupid. Heres the best way i can explain it.

2 billion years ago bacteria werent evolving all the while progressing towards a modern human body. Evolution takes tiny minute steps, it has no long term vision. A single chambered open circulatory system gains an extra chamber for the atrium to store unoxygenated blood. The atrium separates into two separate chambers to prevent the mixing of oxygenated and unoxygenated blood, proving more efficient respiration. The ventricle later does the same. This is the general progress of the circulatory system. Evolution never even "thinks" to move from one ventricle to two, the organisms with slight divisions in the ventricle simply have better luck surviving.

 

[cbirch2]

Oh boy do you see how you try to spin ? your word games are making you look foolish.

Yes dogs will breed with any dogs that is why if we didn't control their breeding we would have nothing but mutts, with an extremely large gene pool. In the wild most animals keep to themselves that is why your theory is rediculous and this reasoning supports my theory the one you called rediculous.

I don't need to use your terms to explain what i mean. I am sure people reading this thread do understand what i am saying.

Most animals keep to themselves? Thats ridiculous. Your right, my theory hinges on the exact opposite of that. Because in nature no lineage of animals over several generations is a purebred. Are you saying that a purebred in the wild would consciously choose to mate with a purebred rather than another dog? Because thats simply false.

You get a purebred through isolation. You get a purebred by the gene pool getting smaller. The moment a different kind of animal is introduce to the gene pool you begin to get change in the offspring immediately, Bcause of the information that came from both parents through sexual reproduction.

No,have you ever seen a dog turn down a dog in heat ? there have been hybrids between domestic dogs and coyotes and wolves. We have cross breedings between deer in the wild here in Arizona. But they keep to their kind,dogs with dogs,cats with cats deer with deer.

"You get a purebred through isolation. You get a purebred by the gene pool getting smaller."

The genepool of purebreeds can get small, this is true. Only its because humans get to choose which animals the purebred mates with. That doesnt happen in nature. Isolation doesnt do that, you dont find purebred organisms due to isolation alone.

"there have been hybrids between domestic dogs and coyotes and wolves"

Coyotes are a separate species an cannot produce a viable offspring with a dog.

"But they keep to their kind,dogs with dogs,cats with cats deer with deer."

Yup, totally true. If a dog mated with something outside its species and produced fertile offspring that would not only prove evolution wrong but all of modern biology as well.

You clearly dont understand genetics, biology, mutation, natural selection, evolution, and least of all speciation.

Evolution does not claim a dog should be able to produce offspring with anything but an animal of its species. What it does say is that two groups of the same species that become isolated will have no way of adapting and evolving together, and therefore will become two separate species incapable of interbreeding over many many generations.

 

[cbirch2]

"How does evolution know we need kidneys and hearts"

I thought the same type of thing in 7th grade before i understood the concept of how genetic information is spread throughout a population.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Those random mutations i posted up i better explain that to you. Do you see how destructive they were to my short question ?Random mutations were no help to my question.

That is how information gets lost or replaced now if that really happened we would all go extinct.

Can you imagine what would happen if information was lost for the heart,kidneys,or brain ?

That is why you should be thankful that God's way of order limits us from too much change,because we would not be here if it happened the way evolutionist claim.

"Can you imagine what would happen if information was lost for the heart,kidneys,or brain"

WHAT DOES THIS STATEMENT HAVE TO DO WITH EVOLUTION?! Are you suggesting that if evolution were right, a mutation causing the loss of some vital information should spread throughout the population before a beneficial one? By what mechanism would that mutation spread through the gene pool? Is the animal without a brain going to reproduce and pass that mutation on? Total idiot post.

No, life would stop,but that is what is happening with mutations,deformty disease,and Premature death.

Too many mutations would be harmful to any population. If you don't believe me you need to educate yourself on mutations.

There are over 4,500 genetic diseases currently,so tell me how there are enough beneficial mutations that would overcome greatly the number of neutral and harmful mutations so macro-evolution can happen ?

I figured i would help you with this.

Most mutations are harmful (Talk.Origins)











Response Article
This article (Most mutations are harmful (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.
Index







Claim CB101:

Most mutations are harmful, so the overall effect of mutations is harmful.

Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 55-57.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 100.

CreationWiki response:

This is a case where Creationists and Evolutionists mean different things by the same terms.

When Creationists speak of the harm, neutrality or benefit of mutations, it is a reference to general harm, neutrality or benefit. Being random, mutations represent a loss of genetic information and they often result in a loss of specialization. Such mutations actually produce an organism that is generally weaker than the non-mutant, but in some cases a mutation happens to allow the mutant to survive an unusual situation because the mutants have lost something the situation targets for destruction.

When Evolutionists speak of the harm, neutrality or benefit of mutations, they refer to specific harm, neutrality or benefit. A claim that some mutations are beneficial, neutral or harmful to an organism is always environment specific. They see no absolute benefit or harm, but see it as relative to a specific environment.

Furthermore Evolutionists see all genetic variation as coming from mutations. They often ignore other sources of genetic variation such as Genetic recombination, Natural Genetic Engineering and Gene transference

(Talk.Origins quotes in blue)


1. Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but a significant fraction are beneficial. The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.

What Talk Origins does not tell you is that this study did not measure actual mutations in human beings. As with a number of other studies, Nachman and Crowell did a comparison of Human and Chimpanzee DNA; they then used the totally Evolutionary assumption that Humans and Chimpanzees had a common ancestor that lived about 5 million years ago. Their estimate of 3 deleterious mutations per generation had the same basis.

As a result this study has no basis in reality.


2. Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:
Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).

These are actually cases of Natural Genetic Engineering not random mutations. In these cases the genetic change is too convenient and repeatable to be a result of random mutations. In these and similar cases the evidence suggests that the organisms deliberately reprogrammed their DNA in response to environmental conditions. This adds a level of complexity that is more consistent with the actions of an intelligent designer than with natural process.

Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).

The first question is beneficial to whom? To the plant or to human needs for food. This is a case where intelligent agents (humans) select by deliberate choice those traits that benefit their own needs rather than the plant's.

While the data needed for certainty is not available, it is likely that these plants lose something in the process, such as the ability to survive without human care. For example, the same trait or lack of a trait that keeps away pests may keep away fertilizing insects as well.


Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001)

In these cases the resistance to AIDS results from a genetic deletion, and thus is unquestionably a loss of information. The resistance to AIDS results from that person's lacking an enzyme that is used by the AIDS virus. This type of mutation is expected under the Creation model.


or to heart disease.

Creationists do not claim that mutations never produce positive side effects, but that they are harmful over all. For example, a mutation might prevent a person from forming the platelets that causes blood to clot. Such a mutation would have the positive side effect of all but eliminating the chances of having a stroke or heart attack, but someone with such a condition is likely to bleed to death from a minor cut.

If this is a mutation, it is likely that there are negative side affects that the researchers missed simply because they did not look for them.

Finally, since the gene in question existed long before being discovered, it is possible that that gene could be the original and the “normal” gene of the mutation.



A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).


These people have a genetic disease that causes deformities in the mouth, which probably make eating difficult. While one effect is increased bone density, the fact that the mutation also causes deformities in the mandible (lower jaw) makes it likely that the higher bone density is at least partly responsible for the deformities. To call this a beneficial mutation, without saying anything about the deformities, is at best poor scholarship and at worst deliberate fraud.



Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).


Transposons are not mutations but Mobile genetic elements. They are segments of DNA that cut and paste or copy and paste themselves into other segments of DNA. While they can cause mutations in the process, transposons are a way for a cell to move genetic material around. This process can create new varieties within a created kind, by reusing existing genetic information.
Reference: Transposon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reference: Transposons/ Transposable Elements



In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).


The processes involved in this experiment were purely chemical in nature. The improved function of the RNA was in the form of faster catalytic and amplification rates. As such it has no bearing on the question of beneficial mutations.




3. Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly.


Defining beneficial mutations in this manner allows any non-fatal mutation to be potentially beneficial, thus making the concept untestable. The simple fact is that with a little imagination a situation can be found were even the most degenerative mutations could have a survival advantage. Here are a few examples:
A mutation in a bird that prevents its wings from developing, thus rendering it flightless, would protect that bird from being hit by a plane or being sucked into a jet engine. According to Talk Origins’ definition this would make it a beneficial mutation.
A deer born without legs would be unable to cross a road. Such a mutation would protect that deer from being hit by a car. According to Talk Origins’ definition this would make it a beneficial mutation.
Chihuahuas are basically degenerative mutant dogs, particularly when compared to wolves. Lock a dozen wolves and chihuahuas in a room; give them water but no food. In a week you will only have wolves, because they would have eaten the chihuahuas. Now let’s redo this experiment by mounting a bunch of remote controlled machine guns around the room at about 2 feet high. Within seconds of turning on the guns the only living dogs in the room will be the chihuahuas. All the wolves would have been shot. According to Talk Origins’ definition, the chihuahuas would be a beneficial mutation when the machine guns are on.

In all three cases the mutants are clearly inferior to and less likely to survive in nature than the non-mutants, yet their degenerative mutant state prevents them from being exposed to something that will kill the non-mutants.

When Creationists say that there are no beneficial mutations, they mean mutations that are generally beneficial to the organism and not the odd case where the degenerative condition prevents them from being exposed to some source of harm. This type of mutation would require producing new information, which is impossible for a random event such as a mutation.




4. High mutation rates are advantageous in some environments. Hypermutable strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa are found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, where antibiotics and other stresses increase selection pressure and variability, than in patients without cystic fibrosis.


Are they high mutation rates or actually high Natural genetic engineering rates? It makes sense that bacteria with high Natural Genetic Engineering rates would do better in high stress environments than low stress environments.




5. Note that the existence of any beneficial mutations is a falsification of the young-earth creationism model (Morris 1985, 13).


Finding mutations that are beneficial in an absolute sense would be a failed prediction of the creation model, but this does not apply to the relative beneficial mutations that Talk Origins refers to. Falsification of the Creation model for mutations would require random mutations that actually generate information rather than destroy it as random mutations actually do.

http://creationwiki.org/Most_mutations_are_harmful_(Talk.Origins)

 

[Youwerecreated]

"How does evolution know we need kidneys and hearts"

I thought the same type of thing in 7th grade before i understood the concept of how genetic information is spread throughout a population.

They have to be present from the beginning or there is no life.

Your natural selection has to an intelligent process,that sounds like a creator to me.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So now i know for sure you dont even know how natural selection works. I was saying this a while back but you didnt seem to get it. Lol how many doctors do you think agree with me versus you? I guarantee you that the vast majority of degree holding professionals believe in evolution. Especially doctors.

But back to how you dont understand natural selection. The environment does not control the mutation, thats why you dont get. Nothing in the environment actually does the mutating of the genetic material, in terms of natural selection. The environment can induce mutations, but that isnt the type of mutation that natural selection deals with and those mutations generally arent passed on (they arent mutated sperm or egg cells). In natural selection the mutations or variations are random, due to a whole range of phenomena.

Natural selection is how those random mutations influence the organisms competitive advantage. Its about how likely those mutations are to be passed on. The mutations in darwins finches were random. Some mutations allowed for slightly different expressions of the protein BMP4, which plays a major role in skeletal development in the embryo. The mutation any single finch may get is random, so each bird that has a mutation in the expression of BMP4 may have a slightly different shaped beak. The ones with beaks that allow them advantages, like being pointed enough to dig further into trees, allowed them to survive better. They consume more resources, it becomes harder for those without that mutation to survive, and therefore the entire population has evolved.

So you should be able to answer how Natural selection knows the difference between beneficial,neutral ,and harmful mutations ?

If natural selection can't see, how does it know good from bad ?

If natural selection is a natural process, and a non-intelligent process, how would it know to make intelligence through random mutations ?

How would natural selection know that we need hearts,lungs,brains,kidneys,blood,and veins ?

You see your theory depends on chance mutations and natural selection. Natural selection and random mutations can't possibly account for every living organism by chance. That is a bigger leap of faith then believing in a divine creator.

Trust me, i was educated at the University of Arizona,they did not teach me creationism science. I believe they did a good job teaching me what you know but however many moons have pasted since i was in school. But as you can see i stay on top of things so please quit insulting me and yourself in the process.

Wow, your posts get dumber and dumber. I love this part:

"So you should be able to answer how Natural selection knows the difference between beneficial,neutral ,and harmful mutations ?

If natural selection can't see, how does it know good from bad ?

If natural selection is a natural process, and a non-intelligent process, how would it know to make intelligence through random mutations ?"

Do you not understand the concept of competitive and reproductive advantage?

This part is very humorous as well:

"How would natural selection know that we need hearts,lungs,brains,kidneys,blood,and veins?".



Extremely stupid. I'm having trouble even coming up with the words to explain what im trying to say now, that was so stupid. Heres the best way i can explain it.

2 billion years ago bacteria werent evolving all the while progressing towards a modern human body. Evolution takes tiny minute steps, it has no long term vision. A single chambered open circulatory system gains an extra chamber for the atrium to store unoxygenated blood. The atrium separates into two separate chambers to prevent the mixing of oxygenated and unoxygenated blood, proving more efficient respiration. The ventricle later does the same. This is the general progress of the circulatory system. Evolution never even "thinks" to move from one ventricle to two, the organisms with slight divisions in the ventricle simply have better luck surviving.

Just answer the questions.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So now i know for sure you dont even know how natural selection works. I was saying this a while back but you didnt seem to get it. Lol how many doctors do you think agree with me versus you? I guarantee you that the vast majority of degree holding professionals believe in evolution. Especially doctors.

But back to how you dont understand natural selection. The environment does not control the mutation, thats why you dont get. Nothing in the environment actually does the mutating of the genetic material, in terms of natural selection. The environment can induce mutations, but that isnt the type of mutation that natural selection deals with and those mutations generally arent passed on (they arent mutated sperm or egg cells). In natural selection the mutations or variations are random, due to a whole range of phenomena.

Natural selection is how those random mutations influence the organisms competitive advantage. Its about how likely those mutations are to be passed on. The mutations in darwins finches were random. Some mutations allowed for slightly different expressions of the protein BMP4, which plays a major role in skeletal development in the embryo. The mutation any single finch may get is random, so each bird that has a mutation in the expression of BMP4 may have a slightly different shaped beak. The ones with beaks that allow them advantages, like being pointed enough to dig further into trees, allowed them to survive better. They consume more resources, it becomes harder for those without that mutation to survive, and therefore the entire population has evolved.

So you should be able to answer how Natural selection knows the difference between beneficial,neutral ,and harmful mutations ?

If natural selection can't see, how does it know good from bad ?

If natural selection is a natural process, and a non-intelligent process, how would it know to make intelligence through random mutations ?

How would natural selection know that we need hearts,lungs,brains,kidneys,blood,and veins ?

You see your theory depends on chance mutations and natural selection. Natural selection and random mutations can't possibly account for every living organism by chance. That is a bigger leap of faith then believing in a divine creator.

Trust me, i was educated at the University of Arizona,they did not teach me creationism science. I believe they did a good job teaching me what you know but however many moons have pasted since i was in school. But as you can see i stay on top of things so please quit insulting me and yourself in the process.

Wow, your posts get dumber and dumber. I love this part:

"So you should be able to answer how Natural selection knows the difference between beneficial,neutral ,and harmful mutations ?

If natural selection can't see, how does it know good from bad ?

If natural selection is a natural process, and a non-intelligent process, how would it know to make intelligence through random mutations ?"

Do you not understand the concept of competitive and reproductive advantage?

This part is very humorous as well:

"How would natural selection know that we need hearts,lungs,brains,kidneys,blood,and veins?".



Extremely stupid. I'm having trouble even coming up with the words to explain what im trying to say now, that was so stupid. Heres the best way i can explain it.

2 billion years ago bacteria werent evolving all the while progressing towards a modern human body. Evolution takes tiny minute steps, it has no long term vision. A single chambered open circulatory system gains an extra chamber for the atrium to store unoxygenated blood. The atrium separates into two separate chambers to prevent the mixing of oxygenated and unoxygenated blood, proving more efficient respiration. The ventricle later does the same. This is the general progress of the circulatory system. Evolution never even "thinks" to move from one ventricle to two, the organisms with slight divisions in the ventricle simply have better luck surviving.

Sounds like intelligence was needed right ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Most animals keep to themselves? Thats ridiculous. Your right, my theory hinges on the exact opposite of that. Because in nature no lineage of animals over several generations is a purebred. Are you saying that a purebred in the wild would consciously choose to mate with a purebred rather than another dog? Because thats simply false.

You get a purebred through isolation. You get a purebred by the gene pool getting smaller. The moment a different kind of animal is introduce to the gene pool you begin to get change in the offspring immediately, Bcause of the information that came from both parents through sexual reproduction.

No,have you ever seen a dog turn down a dog in heat ? there have been hybrids between domestic dogs and coyotes and wolves. We have cross breedings between deer in the wild here in Arizona. But they keep to their kind,dogs with dogs,cats with cats deer with deer.

"You get a purebred through isolation. You get a purebred by the gene pool getting smaller."

The genepool of purebreeds can get small, this is true. Only its because humans get to choose which animals the purebred mates with. That doesnt happen in nature. Isolation doesnt do that, you dont find purebred organisms due to isolation alone.

"there have been hybrids between domestic dogs and coyotes and wolves"

Coyotes are a separate species an cannot produce a viable offspring with a dog.

"But they keep to their kind,dogs with dogs,cats with cats deer with deer."

Yup, totally true. If a dog mated with something outside its species and produced fertile offspring that would not only prove evolution wrong but all of modern biology as well.

You clearly dont understand genetics, biology, mutation, natural selection, evolution, and least of all speciation.

Evolution does not claim a dog should be able to produce offspring with anything but an animal of its species. What it does say is that two groups of the same species that become isolated will have no way of adapting and evolving together, and therefore will become two separate species incapable of interbreeding over many many generations.

So tigers and lions are not purebreeds ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Just for your information for the future.

Hybrid coyote domestic dog.

Coydog, Coydogs, Domestic Dog Coyote Hybrid, Dogotes

 

[Montrovant]

So you should be able to answer how Natural selection knows the difference between beneficial,neutral ,and harmful mutations ?

If natural selection can't see, how does it know good from bad ?

If natural selection is a natural process, and a non-intelligent process, how would it know to make intelligence through random mutations ?

How would natural selection know that we need hearts,lungs,brains,kidneys,blood,and veins ?

You see your theory depends on chance mutations and natural selection. Natural selection and random mutations can't possibly account for every living organism by chance. That is a bigger leap of faith then believing in a divine creator.

Trust me, i was educated at the University of Arizona,they did not teach me creationism science. I believe they did a good job teaching me what you know but however many moons have pasted since i was in school. But as you can see i stay on top of things so please quit insulting me and yourself in the process.

Wow, your posts get dumber and dumber. I love this part:

"So you should be able to answer how Natural selection knows the difference between beneficial,neutral ,and harmful mutations ?

If natural selection can't see, how does it know good from bad ?

If natural selection is a natural process, and a non-intelligent process, how would it know to make intelligence through random mutations ?"

Do you not understand the concept of competitive and reproductive advantage?

This part is very humorous as well:

"How would natural selection know that we need hearts,lungs,brains,kidneys,blood,and veins?".



Extremely stupid. I'm having trouble even coming up with the words to explain what im trying to say now, that was so stupid. Heres the best way i can explain it.

2 billion years ago bacteria werent evolving all the while progressing towards a modern human body. Evolution takes tiny minute steps, it has no long term vision. A single chambered open circulatory system gains an extra chamber for the atrium to store unoxygenated blood. The atrium separates into two separate chambers to prevent the mixing of oxygenated and unoxygenated blood, proving more efficient respiration. The ventricle later does the same. This is the general progress of the circulatory system. Evolution never even "thinks" to move from one ventricle to two, the organisms with slight divisions in the ventricle simply have better luck surviving.

Sounds like intelligence was needed right ?

That is in no way what he is saying, nor is it necessarily a correct inference.

I get the impression you are too caught up on the terms beneficial and harmful. For some reason you equate those with intelligence. The idea, as I understand it, is that a mutation is beneficial when it leads to greater survivability. It is harmful when the opposite proves true. An animal with traits which lead to greater survivability will survive in greater numbers and reproduce more than an animal without those traits. That mutation is therefor considered beneficial.

Natural selection wouldn't know to evolve intelligence. If animals with greater intelligence are better able to survive, then they will pass that trait on to their offspring, who will also be better able to survive, eventually perhaps taking all the food supply or hording the mates for themselves, etc., causing the animals without that trait of greater intelligence to die out.

That you believe an intelligence is behind the myriad forms of life is obvious. I can certainly understand that belief. However, you too often seem to mistake the opposing ideas being presented. Natural selection is not a being, it is not an intelligence, it is merely a process. Agree or disagree with it as you will, that doesn't change what it is.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Wow, your posts get dumber and dumber. I love this part:

"So you should be able to answer how Natural selection knows the difference between beneficial,neutral ,and harmful mutations ?

If natural selection can't see, how does it know good from bad ?

If natural selection is a natural process, and a non-intelligent process, how would it know to make intelligence through random mutations ?"

Do you not understand the concept of competitive and reproductive advantage?

This part is very humorous as well:

"How would natural selection know that we need hearts,lungs,brains,kidneys,blood,and veins?".



Extremely stupid. I'm having trouble even coming up with the words to explain what im trying to say now, that was so stupid. Heres the best way i can explain it.

2 billion years ago bacteria werent evolving all the while progressing towards a modern human body. Evolution takes tiny minute steps, it has no long term vision. A single chambered open circulatory system gains an extra chamber for the atrium to store unoxygenated blood. The atrium separates into two separate chambers to prevent the mixing of oxygenated and unoxygenated blood, proving more efficient respiration. The ventricle later does the same. This is the general progress of the circulatory system. Evolution never even "thinks" to move from one ventricle to two, the organisms with slight divisions in the ventricle simply have better luck surviving.

Sounds like intelligence was needed right ?

That is in no way what he is saying, nor is it necessarily a correct inference.

I get the impression you are too caught up on the terms beneficial and harmful. For some reason you equate those with intelligence. The idea, as I understand it, is that a mutation is beneficial when it leads to greater survivability. It is harmful when the opposite proves true. An animal with traits which lead to greater survivability will survive in greater numbers and reproduce more than an animal without those traits. That mutation is therefor considered beneficial.

Natural selection wouldn't know to evolve intelligence. If animals with greater intelligence are better able to survive, then they will pass that trait on to their offspring, who will also be better able to survive, eventually perhaps taking all the food supply or hording the mates for themselves, etc., causing the animals without that trait of greater intelligence to die out.

That you believe an intelligence is behind the myriad forms of life is obvious. I can certainly understand that belief. However, you too often seem to mistake the opposing ideas being presented. Natural selection is not a being, it is not an intelligence, it is merely a process. Agree or disagree with it as you will, that doesn't change what it is.

Agreed,to a point,but there is no evidence presented just terminology. How could anything live without the needed organs ?

I agree that the parents pass on genetic information to the offspring where did the information for life come from originally ?

I have presented why mutations can't possibly be the engine for evolution he just glosses over it. It's a fact that all mutations lead to any kind of change leads to a loss of information whether it's from a rearranging or the outright deletion of information.

I have also presented how enviornment causes adaptations which was glossed over. It was not random mutations that caused the finches to adapt it was enviornment.

So right now i have presented how enviornment and sexual reproduction promote change not random mutations.

I have clearly shown the mutation rate argument and the problems it presents for Neo,but that gets ignored.

He acted like i didn't know what i was talking about when i showed him the results from mutations in the question i asked him. They totally destroyed my question to him,and the origional information that gets destroyed by mutations could lead to missing organs, deformity,or disease.

But anyhow people can choose to believe as they wish. I believe i presented the better argument for an intelligent designer over his theory built on Natural selection and beneficial mutations.

A home or car did not happen by chance nor did life or this great planet.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I declare this thread dead.

Everyone take care.

 

[cbirch2]

Those random mutations i posted up i better explain that to you. Do you see how destructive they were to my short question ?Random mutations were no help to my question.

That is how information gets lost or replaced now if that really happened we would all go extinct.

Can you imagine what would happen if information was lost for the heart,kidneys,or brain ?

That is why you should be thankful that God's way of order limits us from too much change,because we would not be here if it happened the way evolutionist claim.

"Can you imagine what would happen if information was lost for the heart,kidneys,or brain"

WHAT DOES THIS STATEMENT HAVE TO DO WITH EVOLUTION?! Are you suggesting that if evolution were right, a mutation causing the loss of some vital information should spread throughout the population before a beneficial one? By what mechanism would that mutation spread through the gene pool? Is the animal without a brain going to reproduce and pass that mutation on? Total idiot post.

No, life would stop,but that is what is happening with mutations,deformty disease,and Premature death.

Too many mutations would be harmful to any population. If you don't believe me you need to educate yourself on mutations.

There are over 4,500 genetic diseases currently,so tell me how there are enough beneficial mutations that would overcome greatly the number of neutral and harmful mutations so macro-evolution can happen ?

Wow. Ok first off an observation. Humans are living longer and longer, so i think that kind of throws your theory about genetic deformity out the window.

But beyond that, HARMFUL MUTATIONS CANNOT SPREAD THROUGHOUT THE POPULATION. If an organism loses some vital gene its not going to reproduce, its probably not even going to survive. Its just going to die. The mutation might always be present within a few individuals in the population, but its never going to take over an entire population because the organisms cant compete. Saying bad mutations could take over a population is like saying people with down syndrome could rise up and rule the world. It ridiculous. Harmful mutations dont get passed on because people with down syndrome arent exactly cranking out babies. Ever seen a retarded bird? No? Because they all die almost immediately after birth. The parent animal cannot care for it.

If we're talking about sexual reproduction in general, any group of interbreeding animals in nature is just going to be a random flow of genes within the population.

Most mutations do nothing much at all and are passed on like any other piece of DNA during reproduction; they dont effect the survival of the organism at all. Ill refer to these as "neutral mutations", just so you know exactly what im talking about.

Beneficial mutations, just like neutral mutations, are passed on like any other piece of DNA. The only difference is that organisms with beneficial mutations are likely to live long longer, and possible reproduce faster. In any environment resources are limited. Animals with slight advantages can gather more resources than the others, reproduce faster, live longer, and pass on their beneficial gene. So beneficial genes are spread throughout an entire population much more frequently than even neutral mutations are.

 

[cbirch2]

Those random mutations i posted up i better explain that to you. Do you see how destructive they were to my short question ?Random mutations were no help to my question.

That is how information gets lost or replaced now if that really happened we would all go extinct.

Can you imagine what would happen if information was lost for the heart,kidneys,or brain ?

That is why you should be thankful that God's way of order limits us from too much change,because we would not be here if it happened the way evolutionist claim.

"Can you imagine what would happen if information was lost for the heart,kidneys,or brain"

WHAT DOES THIS STATEMENT HAVE TO DO WITH EVOLUTION?! Are you suggesting that if evolution were right, a mutation causing the loss of some vital information should spread throughout the population before a beneficial one? By what mechanism would that mutation spread through the gene pool? Is the animal without a brain going to reproduce and pass that mutation on? Total idiot post.

I figured i would help you with this.

Most mutations are harmful (Talk.Origins)



Response Article
This article (Most mutations are harmful (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.
Index


Claim CB101:

Most mutations are harmful, so the overall effect of mutations is harmful.

Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 55-57.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 100.

CreationWiki response:

This is a case where Creationists and Evolutionists mean different things by the same terms.

When Creationists speak of the harm, neutrality or benefit of mutations, it is a reference to general harm, neutrality or benefit. Being random, mutations represent a loss of genetic information and they often result in a loss of specialization. Such mutations actually produce an organism that is generally weaker than the non-mutant, but in some cases a mutation happens to allow the mutant to survive an unusual situation because the mutants have lost something the situation targets for destruction.

When Evolutionists speak of the harm, neutrality or benefit of mutations, they refer to specific harm, neutrality or benefit. A claim that some mutations are beneficial, neutral or harmful to an organism is always environment specific. They see no absolute benefit or harm, but see it as relative to a specific environment.

Furthermore Evolutionists see all genetic variation as coming from mutations. They often ignore other sources of genetic variation such as Genetic recombination, Natural Genetic Engineering and Gene transference

1. Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but a significant fraction are beneficial. The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.

What Talk Origins does not tell you is that this study did not measure actual mutations in human beings. As with a number of other studies, Nachman and Crowell did a comparison of Human and Chimpanzee DNA; they then used the totally Evolutionary assumption that Humans and Chimpanzees had a common ancestor that lived about 5 million years ago. Their estimate of 3 deleterious mutations per generation had the same basis.

As a result this study has no basis in reality.

This did not at all address the fact that beneficial mutations mus spread through a population while harmful mutations cannot. In fact its silence almost seems to be an endorsement of the idea.

2. Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:
Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).

These are actually cases of Natural Genetic Engineering not random mutations. In these cases the genetic change is too convenient and repeatable to be a result of random mutations. In these and similar cases the evidence suggests that the organisms deliberately reprogrammed their DNA in response to environmental conditions. This adds a level of complexity that is more consistent with the actions of an intelligent designer than with natural process.

They deliberately changed their DNA? Like the insect decided that it wanted the DNA in its chromosomes to suddenly change? All of them? Lol thats the shottest thing ive ever heard. Natural Genetic Engineering is not a real term. Cool made up term bro.

Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).

The first question is beneficial to whom? To the plant or to human needs for food. This is a case where intelligent agents (humans) select by deliberate choice those traits that benefit their own needs rather than the plant's.

While the data needed for certainty is not available, it is likely that these plants lose something in the process, such as the ability to survive without human care. For example, the same trait or lack of a trait that keeps away pests may keep away fertilizing insects as well.

When biologists say beneficial or harmful, they mean for the organism possessing the mutation. That should be very obvious to anyone that understands the mechanism by which it works. Your second statement is total speculation and certifiably not true. Most mutations arent going to cause some stupid little quid pro quo.

Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001)

In these cases the resistance to AIDS results from a genetic deletion, and thus is unquestionably a loss of information. The resistance to AIDS results from that person's lacking an enzyme that is used by the AIDS virus. This type of mutation is expected under the Creation model.

This response is a blatant lie. The mutation that allows for immunity to aids results in neither insertion or deletion. Its a variation in 5 amino acids in the protein HLA-B that alert the immune system to the presence of HIV. Mystery of Aids immunity may be solved - Science, News - The Independent

You would think that after your source have been revealed as blatant lies multiple times you would begin to question them.

or to heart disease.

Creationists do not claim that mutations never produce positive side effects, but that they are harmful over all. For example, a mutation might prevent a person from forming the platelets that causes blood to clot. Such a mutation would have the positive side effect of all but eliminating the chances of having a stroke or heart attack, but someone with such a condition is likely to bleed to death from a minor cut.

In any given environment there are mutations that cause a general advantage. Since tigers probably dont die of cholesterol, im assuming a mutation resulting in hemophilia (what this quote is about) would certainly be harmful.

If this is a mutation, it is likely that there are negative side affects that the researchers missed simply because they did not look for them.

Its likely a mutations that they missed? Now your just counting on our measurements being wrong, that seems like a weak argument.

Finally, since the gene in question existed long before being discovered, it is possible that that gene could be the original and the “normal” gene of the mutation.

Lol a cop out, but fine ill accept it as a valid rebuttle.

A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).


These people have a genetic disease that causes deformities in the mouth, which probably make eating difficult. While one effect is increased bone density, the fact that the mutation also causes deformities in the mandible (lower jaw) makes it likely that the higher bone density is at least partly responsible for the deformities. To call this a beneficial mutation, without saying anything about the deformities, is at best poor scholarship and at worst deliberate fraud.

Im not sure the mutation hes talking about. I suspect the first poster is talking about a more subtle variation in the expression of bone marrow or something, while your creationist poster is talking about some debilitating genetic maformity.

Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).


Transposons are not mutations but Mobile genetic elements. They are segments of DNA that cut and paste or copy and paste themselves into other segments of DNA. While they can cause mutations in the process, transposons are a way for a cell to move genetic material around. This process can create new varieties within a created kind, by reusing existing genetic information.
Reference: Transposon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reference: Transposons/ Transposable Elements

Correct that transposons do not result in new information but they do result the expression of new or altered protein. To say they always result in the same kind is ridiculous. By "kind" i assume you mean "species". By "species" i assume you mean " group of animals able to interbreed". If this is the case, and it should be, then your article is wrong. A significant transposon could no doubt result in two organisms with chromosomes so different they were unable to breed. So your article is essentially very wrong here.

In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).


The processes involved in this experiment were purely chemical in nature. The improved function of the RNA was in the form of faster catalytic and amplification rates. As such it has no bearing on the question of beneficial mutations.

At its most basic level life is purely chemical in nature. Catalyzed chemical reactions are directly beneficial to an organisms survival. It has to expend less ATP, therefore less glucose, and therefore have a more efficient metabolism.

3. Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly.


Defining beneficial mutations in this manner allows any non-fatal mutation to be potentially beneficial, thus making the concept untestable. The simple fact is that with a little imagination a situation can be found were even the most degenerative mutations could have a survival advantage. Here are a few examples:
A mutation in a bird that prevents its wings from developing, thus rendering it flightless, would protect that bird from being hit by a plane or being sucked into a jet engine. According to Talk Origins’ definition this would make it a beneficial mutation.
A deer born without legs would be unable to cross a road. Such a mutation would protect that deer from being hit by a car. According to Talk Origins’ definition this would make it a beneficial mutation.
Chihuahuas are basically degenerative mutant dogs, particularly when compared to wolves. Lock a dozen wolves and chihuahuas in a room; give them water but no food. In a week you will only have wolves, because they would have eaten the chihuahuas. Now let’s redo this experiment by mounting a bunch of remote controlled machine guns around the room at about 2 feet high. Within seconds of turning on the guns the only living dogs in the room will be the chihuahuas. All the wolves would have been shot. According to Talk Origins’ definition, the chihuahuas would be a beneficial mutation when the machine guns are on.

In all three cases the mutants are clearly inferior to and less likely to survive in nature than the non-mutants, yet their degenerative mutant state prevents them from being exposed to something that will kill the non-mutants.

When Creationists say that there are no beneficial mutations, they mean mutations that are generally beneficial to the organism and not the odd case where the degenerative condition prevents them from being exposed to some source of harm. This type of mutation would require producing new information, which is impossible for a random event such as a mutation.

"Not having wings is beneficial because they wont be hit by planes"

4. High mutation rates are advantageous in some environments. Hypermutable strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa are found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, where antibiotics and other stresses increase selection pressure and variability, than in patients without cystic fibrosis.


Are they high mutation rates or actually high Natural genetic engineering rates? It makes sense that bacteria with high Natural Genetic Engineering rates would do better in high stress environments than low stress environments.

Lol o yes Natural Genetic Engineering...yes...

5. Note that the existence of any beneficial mutations is a falsification of the young-earth creationism model (Morris 1985, 13).


Finding mutations that are beneficial in an absolute sense would be a failed prediction of the creation model, but this does not apply to the relative beneficial mutations that Talk Origins refers to. Falsification of the Creation model for mutations would require random mutations that actually generate information rather than destroy it as random mutations actually do.

http://creationwiki.org/Most_mutations_are_harmful_(Talk.Origins)

"Falsification of the Creation model for mutations would require random mutations that actually generate information rather than destroy it..."

So this wikipedia page disproves creation? Insertion (genetics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[cbirch2]

"How does evolution know we need kidneys and hearts"

I thought the same type of thing in 7th grade before i understood the concept of how genetic information is spread throughout a population.

They have to be present from the beginning or there is no life.

Your natural selection has to an intelligent process,that sounds like a creator to me.

NO THEY DO NOT The circulatory system is a result of large body size. Small organisms dont have a circulatory system like we do. Complexity is built on as body size increases. Some simple animals have a single chambered heart that pumps blood one direction through the body. Others dont have a circulatory system at all. A heart is not a prerequisite to life, not even close.

Natural selection is not an intelligent process. It is very simple. The progression from a simple 1 chamber pump to a 4 chambered heart is not as complex as you seem to think.

Its just a variation in the protein that alters the formation of the wall between the atria or ventricles. The wall allows for the separation between oxygenated and un-oxygenated blood. Mixing is inefficient; some oxygenated blood goes back to the lungs, some un-oxygenated blood goes out to the body. The separation of the two allows for much more efficient respiration.

The theory of evolution would claim that life started simple (one chambered and extremely inefficient heart) and some slowly progressed to be more complex (a partially separated atrium, then three chambers, then partially seprated ventricle, then 4 chambers).

If life were the result of intelligent design why would god create life with inefficient bodily functions? Theres no reason god should allow the mixing of oxygenated and unoxygenated blood in amphibians and reptiles.

 

[cbirch2]

You get a purebred through isolation. You get a purebred by the gene pool getting smaller. The moment a different kind of animal is introduce to the gene pool you begin to get change in the offspring immediately, Bcause of the information that came from both parents through sexual reproduction.

No,have you ever seen a dog turn down a dog in heat ? there have been hybrids between domestic dogs and coyotes and wolves. We have cross breedings between deer in the wild here in Arizona. But they keep to their kind,dogs with dogs,cats with cats deer with deer.

"You get a purebred through isolation. You get a purebred by the gene pool getting smaller."

The genepool of purebreeds can get small, this is true. Only its because humans get to choose which animals the purebred mates with. That doesnt happen in nature. Isolation doesnt do that, you dont find purebred organisms due to isolation alone.

"there have been hybrids between domestic dogs and coyotes and wolves"

Coyotes are a separate species an cannot produce a viable offspring with a dog.

"But they keep to their kind,dogs with dogs,cats with cats deer with deer."

Yup, totally true. If a dog mated with something outside its species and produced fertile offspring that would not only prove evolution wrong but all of modern biology as well.

You clearly dont understand genetics, biology, mutation, natural selection, evolution, and least of all speciation.

Evolution does not claim a dog should be able to produce offspring with anything but an animal of its species. What it does say is that two groups of the same species that become isolated will have no way of adapting and evolving together, and therefore will become two separate species incapable of interbreeding over many many generations.

So tigers and lions are not purebreeds ?

What?

 

[cbirch2]

Just for your information for the future.

Hybrid coyote domestic dog.

Coydog, Coydogs, Domestic Dog Coyote Hybrid, Dogotes

Wow. Admittedly, i didnt know that coyotes, and dogs, two separate species, were capable of interbreeding. And i know you call this twisting and contorting the facts, but this honestly seems much more like evidence for evolution to me.

See, the general view of a species is a group of animals capable of interbreeding. That just means two similar species resulted from a single group of animals sometime in the past that diversified separately to the point that they cannot interbreed. So therefore there should not be in clear line between which animals can and cannot interbreed. In that gray area you have animals like mules, which is the offspring of two different species, and is infertile. You see the same with the coydog, it fits into that area. It has greater chances of genetic malformation and the animals are frequently insterile; this is because the two species that breed together to produce it (Canis Latrans and Canis Lupis) were at one time similar, but have genetically diversified for thousands of years.

So i would say the coydog fits perfectly into evolution and specifically speciation. Thanks for that tid bit of information, didnt know that those two species were capable of breeding.