Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[daws101]

Of course you selectively breed for certain traits that however is not altering the genome,in other words genetically modified. If they were not close enough genetically you could not produce offspring. You are not,I repeat you are not modifying the genome like you do for genetically modified food. Dawson shows his ignorance for agreeing with you.

Of course you selectively breed for certain traits that however is not altering the genome,in other words genetically modified.

If US corn yield was 60 bushels per acre in 1964 and 80 bushels per acre in 1969, the genome didn't change?

I should have said that a little differently.

If you cross breed a jersey cow with a holstein cow to get more milk you achieved the trait naturally that means the gene already exists in the genome .now if you selectively remove a gene and added a foreign gene to get the milk production up,you have just GM that organism. You're manipulating the genome by adding a gene that did not exist before.

you just debunked your shit yet again...

 

[daws101]

To change a trait or function you need new genetic information.

Now all you need to do is show why new genetic information violates the 2nd Law.

I will say you're correct, the more I have read the more I believe it's a bad argument to say evolution would violate the 2nd law.

Now for the kicker,how did the Dna code arise ? how is new genetic information produced so evolution can take place ?

is that the sound of ass kissing I hear...say anything except I was wrong...

 

[daws101]

I should have said that a little differently.

If you cross breed a jersey cow with a holstein cow to get more milk you achieved the trait naturally that means the gene already exists in the genome .now if you selectively remove a gene and added a foreign gene to get the milk production up,you have just GM that organism. You're manipulating the genome by adding a gene that did not exist before.

How did US corn yield go from 60 bushels per acre in 1964 to 80 bushels per acre in 1969? Do you feel they added a gene that did not exist before?

I don't know but you have a couple of choices. They increased the acreage,they genetically modified the corn or it was through selective breeding.

Now how did it happen ?

Major uses of cropland, selected years, 1949-2002
Cropland used for crops Cropland Total
Year Harvested Failed Fallowed 1 Total 2 Idle 3 pasture 4 cropland 2
Million acres
1949 352 9 22 383 26 69 478
1954 339 13 28 380 19 66 465
1959 318 10 31 359 33 66 458
1964 292 6 37 335 52 57 444
1969 286 6 41 333 51 88 472
1974 322 8 31 361 21 83 465
1978 330 7 32 369 26 76 471
1982 347 5 31 383 21 65 469
1987 293 6 32 331 68 65 464
1992 306 8 24 338 56 67 460
1997 321 7 21 349 39 68 455
2002 307 17 16 340 40 62 442
1 Cultivated summer fallow.
2 Distribution may not add to totals due to rounding.
3 Includes all acreage diverted from crops under the Acreage Reduction Program (ARP), the
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), and other Federal acreage reduction programs shown

 

[Youwerecreated]

as always you're wrong.How is selective breeding a form of biotechnology?
In: Biology
Answer:
Selective breeding is one form of biotechnology important in agriculture and medicine, because when scientists manipulate the genetic makeup of an organism, they are using biotechnology.
How is selective breeding a form of biotechnology

Eots explained it earlier I won't waste time with someone that can't read.

eot's does what he always does...spews bullshit. just like you.

I can't help it you can't understand the simple explanation that eots gave you. Biotechnology is bioengineering.That is not selective breeding this is the technology used to create genetically modified food or enzymes they produce for oil spills.

 

[Youwerecreated]

How did US corn yield go from 60 bushels per acre in 1964 to 80 bushels per acre in 1969? Do you feel they added a gene that did not exist before?

I don't know but you have a couple of choices. They increased the acreage,they genetically modified the corn or it was through selective breeding.

Now how did it happen ?

Major uses of cropland, selected years, 1949-2002
Cropland used for crops Cropland Total
Year Harvested Failed Fallowed 1 Total 2 Idle 3 pasture 4 cropland 2
Million acres
1949 352 9 22 383 26 69 478
1954 339 13 28 380 19 66 465
1959 318 10 31 359 33 66 458
1964 292 6 37 335 52 57 444
1969 286 6 41 333 51 88 472
1974 322 8 31 361 21 83 465
1978 330 7 32 369 26 76 471
1982 347 5 31 383 21 65 469
1987 293 6 32 331 68 65 464
1992 306 8 24 338 56 67 460
1997 321 7 21 349 39 68 455
2002 307 17 16 340 40 62 442
1 Cultivated summer fallow.
2 Distribution may not add to totals due to rounding.
3 Includes all acreage diverted from crops under the Acreage Reduction Program (ARP), the
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), and other Federal acreage reduction programs shown

Ok you have two choices left.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Now all you need to do is show why new genetic information violates the 2nd Law.

I will say you're correct, the more I have read the more I believe it's a bad argument to say evolution would violate the 2nd law.

Now for the kicker,how did the Dna code arise ? how is new genetic information produced so evolution can take place ?

is that the sound of ass kissing I hear...say anything except I was wrong...

I am saying I maybe wrong and it does seem like a bad argument. Yes I am an honest person and when I am wrong or feel there is a good chance I was wrong I can admit it. Some of you can learn from my admission.

 

[Youwerecreated]

sure slapdick....

I know you are pretty dense but just maybe this won't go over your head.

Recombinant DNA technology in eukaryotes - An Introduction to Genetic Analysis - NCBI Bookshelf

it confirms what I posted, thanks!

Yes biotechnology.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Of course you selectively breed for certain traits that however is not altering the genome,in other words genetically modified.

If US corn yield was 60 bushels per acre in 1964 and 80 bushels per acre in 1969, the genome didn't change?

I should have said that a little differently.

If you cross breed a jersey cow with a holstein cow to get more milk you achieved the trait naturally that means the gene already exists in the genome .now if you selectively remove a gene and added a foreign gene to get the milk production up,you have just GM that organism. You're manipulating the genome by adding a gene that did not exist before.

you just debunked your shit yet again...

Hey dumbshit stop while you're behind.

bi·o·tech·nol·o·gy (b-tk-nl-j)
n.
1. The use of microorganisms, such as bacteria or yeasts, or biological substances, such as enzymes, to perform specific industrial or manufacturing processes. Applications include the production of certain drugs, synthetic hormones, and bulk foodstuffs as well as the bioconversion of organic waste and the use of genetically altered bacteria in the cleanup of oil spills.
2.
a. The application of the principles of engineering and technology to the life sciences; bioengineering.

Selective breeding

Definition

noun

The intentional breeding of organisms with desirable trait in an attempt to produce offspring with similar desirable characteristics or with improved traits.


Supplement

It involves breeding techniques such as inbreeding, linebreeding and outcrossing.

Thanks for once again revealing your ignorance.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I should have said that a little differently.

If you cross breed a jersey cow with a holstein cow to get more milk you achieved the trait naturally that means the gene already exists in the genome .now if you selectively remove a gene and added a foreign gene to get the milk production up,you have just GM that organism. You're manipulating the genome by adding a gene that did not exist before.

How did US corn yield go from 60 bushels per acre in 1964 to 80 bushels per acre in 1969? Do you feel they added a gene that did not exist before?

I don't know but you have a couple of choices. They increased the acreage,they genetically modified the corn or it was through selective breeding.

Now how did it happen ?

They increased the acreage

What does that have to do with yield per acre?

they genetically modified the corn or it was through selective breeding

Between 1964 and 1969, what could they have done?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

To change a trait or function you need new genetic information.

Now all you need to do is show why new genetic information violates the 2nd Law.

I will say you're correct, the more I have read the more I believe it's a bad argument to say evolution would violate the 2nd law.

Now for the kicker,how did the Dna code arise ? how is new genetic information produced so evolution can take place ?

I will say you're correct, the more I have read the more I believe it's a bad argument to say evolution would violate the 2nd law.

Thanks, my arm was getting tired from beating you over the head for the last few weeks.

Now for the kicker,how did the Dna code arise ? how is new genetic information produced so evolution can take place ?

In a way that didn't violate the 2nd Law.

 

[Youwerecreated]

How did US corn yield go from 60 bushels per acre in 1964 to 80 bushels per acre in 1969? Do you feel they added a gene that did not exist before?

I don't know but you have a couple of choices. They increased the acreage,they genetically modified the corn or it was through selective breeding.

Now how did it happen ?

They increased the acreage

What does that have to do with yield per acre?

they genetically modified the corn or it was through selective breeding

Between 1964 and 1969, what could they have done?

Sorry my mistake on the per acre. I am waiting for you to offer an explanation you brought it up.

The only doubt I have left is if the 2nd law only applies to the universe but until they say otherwise I will accept my correction.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Now all you need to do is show why new genetic information violates the 2nd Law.

I will say you're correct, the more I have read the more I believe it's a bad argument to say evolution would violate the 2nd law.

Now for the kicker,how did the Dna code arise ? how is new genetic information produced so evolution can take place ?

I will say you're correct, the more I have read the more I believe it's a bad argument to say evolution would violate the 2nd law.

Thanks, my arm was getting tired from beating you over the head for the last few weeks.

Now for the kicker,how did the Dna code arise ? how is new genetic information produced so evolution can take place ?

In a way that didn't violate the 2nd Law.

Agreed

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

By mixing genes from totally unrelated species,you can create toxins, allergens, carcinogens, and nutritional deficiencies not present before

Now all you need to do is find the toxins, allergens, or carcinogens that you feel were added by the new genes.

I don't think you realize how hard it is to remove and add a new gene. I can't even imagine removing those things.If we could do that we could eliminate genetic disease and disorders.

That is what they are working on but they are not even close.

I don't think you realize how hard it is to remove and add a new gene.

It's not that difficult to add a new gene, they do it all the time.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't know but you have a couple of choices. They increased the acreage,they genetically modified the corn or it was through selective breeding.

Now how did it happen ?

They increased the acreage

What does that have to do with yield per acre?

they genetically modified the corn or it was through selective breeding

Between 1964 and 1969, what could they have done?

Sorry my mistake on the per acre. I am waiting for you to offer an explanation you brought it up.

The only doubt I have left is if the 2nd law only applies to the universe but until they say otherwise I will accept my correction.

They genetically modified the corn. They bred a new type, never before seen on Earth, that had a much higher yield.

Look up the Green Revolution.

We've been genetically modifying our crops since the first farmer saved the biggest seeds to plant the following year. Our food crops now look nothing like they did when we first started farming.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Now all you need to do is find the toxins, allergens, or carcinogens that you feel were added by the new genes.

I don't think you realize how hard it is to remove and add a new gene. I can't even imagine removing those things.If we could do that we could eliminate genetic disease and disorders.

That is what they are working on but they are not even close.

I don't think you realize how hard it is to remove and add a new gene.

It's not that difficult to add a new gene, they do it all the time.

Gene cloning is not as easy as you think. You have to extract the Dna and locate the one gene that is responsible for the desired trait. Where it is hard you have thousands of genes to analyze.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Now all you need to do is show why new genetic information violates the 2nd Law.

I will say you're correct, the more I have read the more I believe it's a bad argument to say evolution would violate the 2nd law.

Now for the kicker,how did the Dna code arise ? how is new genetic information produced so evolution can take place ?

I will say you're correct, the more I have read the more I believe it's a bad argument to say evolution would violate the 2nd law.

Thanks, my arm was getting tired from beating you over the head for the last few weeks.

Now for the kicker,how did the Dna code arise ? how is new genetic information produced so evolution can take place ?

In a way that didn't violate the 2nd Law.

Sorry Todd, we have a problem because the 2nd law supposedly only applies to a closed or isolated system.

What I was speaking of was developed here in an open system. What is your response to this ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

They increased the acreage

What does that have to do with yield per acre?

they genetically modified the corn or it was through selective breeding

Between 1964 and 1969, what could they have done?

Sorry my mistake on the per acre. I am waiting for you to offer an explanation you brought it up.

The only doubt I have left is if the 2nd law only applies to the universe but until they say otherwise I will accept my correction.

They genetically modified the corn. They bred a new type, never before seen on Earth, that had a much higher yield.

Look up the Green Revolution.

We've been genetically modifying our crops since the first farmer saved the biggest seeds to plant the following year. Our food crops now look nothing like they did when we first started farming.

For this reason, I only buy what they call organic food lol.

 

[orogenicman]

you are selectively breeding for natural traits ,not introducing traits that never existed in the species...huge diffrenece

Why is it so different? Look at dogs today. Look at what 30,000 years of selective breeding has done to them (particularly the last 100 years). Dogs are a completely new species from their wolf ancestors. Corn is still corn.

why is it different...because we are not fusing spider genes with dog genes thats how its different and dogs and wolfs are in fact in the same species..thats why they can breed naturally together...if you take away selective breeding and dogs are left to interbreed on their own, revert to a stereotypical form within a few generations -- stocky animals with yellowish, medium coats, furry tails, short muzzles and upright ears.

And yet, nature does this all the time. Do you know how much of our own genetic make up is not actually our own? You should read about endogenous retroviruses sometime, and how much of our genetic makeup originated from other life forms. We even have genes in our DNA that originated from sponges.

Yes, dogs go feral, but they have never reverted back to their original wolf ancestors. They may be feral, but they are still dogs.

 

[eots]

Why is it so different? Look at dogs today. Look at what 30,000 years of selective breeding has done to them (particularly the last 100 years). Dogs are a completely new species from their wolf ancestors. Corn is still corn.

why is it different...because we are not fusing spider genes with dog genes thats how its different and dogs and wolfs are in fact in the same species..thats why they can breed naturally together...if you take away selective breeding and dogs are left to interbreed on their own, revert to a stereotypical form within a few generations -- stocky animals with yellowish, medium coats, furry tails, short muzzles and upright ears.

And yet, nature does this all the time. Do you know how much of our own genetic make up is not actually our own? You should read about endogenous retroviruses sometime, and how much of our genetic makeup originated from other life forms. We even have genes in our DNA that originated from sponges.

Yes, dogs go feral, but they have never reverted back to their original wolf ancestors. They may be feral, but they are still dogs.

lol...thats because they were never wolves..they were wild dogs

 

[orogenicman]

why is it different...because we are not fusing spider genes with dog genes thats how its different and dogs and wolfs are in fact in the same species..thats why they can breed naturally together...if you take away selective breeding and dogs are left to interbreed on their own, revert to a stereotypical form within a few generations -- stocky animals with yellowish, medium coats, furry tails, short muzzles and upright ears.

And yet, nature does this all the time. Do you know how much of our own genetic make up is not actually our own? You should read about endogenous retroviruses sometime, and how much of our genetic makeup originated from other life forms. We even have genes in our DNA that originated from sponges.

Yes, dogs go feral, but they have never reverted back to their original wolf ancestors. They may be feral, but they are still dogs.

lol...thats because they were never wolves..they were wild dogs

I don't know where you ever got that idea, but it is wrong. Dogs have only been around for the last 30,000 years, and that is because we bred them from wolves. There is no dispute whatsoever on this matter.