Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Ok, let me rephrase that.
Show me the evidence that dogs cannot be selectively bred to grow as big as an elephant, or as small as a mouse.
does evolution exsist
- Thread starter sifreak21
- Start date
- Status
Ok, let me rephrase that.
Show me the evidence that dogs cannot be selectively bred to grow as big as an elephant, or as small as a mouse.
I personally don't have any firm reasons why not...however, I do note that dogs who are excessively large or excessively small tend to have a lot of physical problems.
For instance, if you buy a large purebred dog, it is most wise to make sure it is certified free of hip dysplasia-a deteriorative hip condition found in a lot of large breeds.
Large breeds also tend to be short-lived.
Conversely, I've seen really small chihuahuas with leg deformities.
Dogs do have a lot of pliability in their genome, though.
I think the evidence is they once were the size of a mouse! All mammals can say that.
No it isn’t. That’s just you blindly parroting misinterpreted information you got from some creationist website. This nonsense is reguriposted by barrow-pushing parrots all over the internet. There’s no end of creationist websites which suggest that chirality is a barrier to abiogenesis.
However, in the real scientific world there is no significant issue. There is a lot of work on production of chirality by the effects of UV light, assembly on mineral surfaces etc. The abiogenically produced Murchison meteorite amino acids are chirally enriched. Also, there is a rule in chemistry known as “The majority rule” whereby in a mixture of monomers with an enatomeric excess, polymers will be produced with a single handedness.
The paper “Cordova A, et al., Amino acid catalyzed neogenesis of carbohydrates: a plausible ancient transformation. Chemistry. 2005 Aug 5;11(16):4772-84.” shows that it is possible to produce high yields of near enationmerically pure D-sugars under certain conditions using proline.
There are multiple mechanisms by which prebiotic chemistry could have produced chirality that was selected for once it was produced.
i understand what you are saying, but the fact remains that there should be some kind of falsifiable test that proves evolution.
and i am not talking about micro evolution.
i don't think you are going to like it too well when some theist starts pulling the same thing.
oh billy you have went and made this too easy, okay the fact is "life comes from life", how did science prove that to be not only a scientific fact but a scientific law?
edit:
i see you want ME to prove it.
the answer is simple: all the tests science has devised to produce life from nonlife has failed.
Last edited:
what i was trying to stress was why is life chiral at all?. what mechanism selects for chirality and why?
edit:
It is concluded that all such mechanisms would be nonviable, and that the turbulent prebiotic environment would require an ongoing extraterrestrial source for the accumulation of chiral molecules on the primitive Earth.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11536669
Last edited:
frankly i think the argument is moot.
its the nature of science itself.
there is no scientist alive that will say "there is no god", and that has mostly nothing to do with any belief. it's the nature of science.
science has no other course than a natural one because it knows of no other way.
is it a failing?
interesting question, fads do not persist on a global scale for any length of time.
its the nature of science itself.
there is no scientist alive that will say "there is no god", and that has mostly nothing to do with any belief. it's the nature of science.
science has no other course than a natural one because it knows of no other way.
is it a failing?
interesting question, fads do not persist on a global scale for any length of time.
It's not a fad, there is simply no evidence for any non-naturalistic process.
It's possible for a scientist to believe there is no god.
Scientifically speaking, he knows he doesn't know, but he can believe one way or they other what he sees as most likely.
Besides, you haven't answered the question again.
You can't disregard every question put to you as a moot point.
Scientifically speaking, he knows he doesn't know, but he can believe one way or they other what he sees as most likely.
Besides, you haven't answered the question again.
You can't disregard every question put to you as a moot point.
Not even close to a proof. 10 billion failures to do X, does not prove it is impossible to do X.
Furthermore it is not always true that life come from life - Once the earth was hotter than molten lead, complete sterile, without any life, yet there is life here now that did not always come from life.
That was a miserable first attempt - not only is your "proof" false, but so is your "fact."
Try again to state a physical fact you can prove is always true.
this is the very same argument a theist would use.
"just because you don't see him now is no sign he won't be here"
you are assuming life came from nonlife, there is no evidence it did or didn't.
"life comes from life" is a scientific law. it has never been proved false.
your turn.
pick something easy like math.
I think it is certainly true that the number of ways DNA, now in some existing creature, can change is finite / limited; however that creature's DNA can change and then that old limit /range of possibilities need not apply.
What you need to postulate, as I said before, is some way to record the changes that have already happened, so than no more are possible after the “limit” is reached, but at any stage (without this limiting mechanism) additional changes are always possible. The biological creature has no way to know when your limit of changes has been reached. -Thus, it can keep accumulating micro-evolutionary changes thru millions of generations, until it is dramatically different. - For example a monkey can still evolve as it has no record of having already evolved from a fish. It’s micro-evolution can still continue.
Again, while I agree with you that the current generation has only a limited range of viable descendents, (all of which will look and biologically function very much like their parents) those descendents will have a slightly different range of possibilities for their descendents, etc. - Repeating that change of possibilities thru enough generations is how fish came to evolve into monkeys, grass hoppers, and thousands of other land dwelling creatures.
No that is just your postulated limit on how far micro-evolution can proceed. The DNA “progamme” is its self what is changing. It may in fact be possible to breed smaller dogs from wolves - that has been done - by man's active selection.
Man selecting for the evolution of dog into elephant is probably possible in principle, but would require a society with that goal being stable for many millions of years. That is not very likely, especially as it would be very expensive. For example, you could not just let the 1000 pound slightly transformed dog, run around in Africa - it would probably starve or lions would eat it. Thus you would need to create new and protected environmental niches for it thru all the "guided evolution" stages - unoccupied environmental "niches" in each stage of the transformation in which it could live in.
Last edited by a moderator:
yes and it is a valid one. Among the many things you can not prove is the existence or non-existence of God. You were the one claiming you could prove some fact, and I am still waiting.
No, I assumed nothing. I gave an argument (molten Earth stage with life now) for that possibility, but it is true I did not prove (or assume) life came from non-life.
My whole point is that these non-mathematical "facts" cannot be proved. All I need to do to show your "fact" (life comes from life) is to point to a possibility that your "fact" is false. - I don't need to show it is false. I only need to suggest how it could be in such a way that you can not show my suggestion is impossible.
Try again to give a physical fact you can prove. Your feeble efforts thus far have not even forced me to bring out my big gun - that you cannot even prove that anything, except your thinking spirit, exists.
Last edited by a moderator:
it is?
you can't be serious.
"just wait guys i know it will happen i know it will"
50 years later:
"well it's gonna happen soon"
you asked me to pick something i thought i could prove.
i gave you one.
at one time i would have asked . . . but nevermind.
then why pray tell do you get your panties all up in your butt crack over a god?
it's YOUR turn.
There are plausible naturalistic explanations for abiogenesis. You would first have to disprove them before it would be logical to consider any other alternative.
Yes, I accept the logic that "the absence of proof is not the proof of absence" - applied to the question of God existing (or not) and to all other things. For example, there is an absence of proof of abiogenesis, but that absence does not prove abiogenesis is false.
Or as I originally stated to destroy your fact's "proof" (many attempts to create life from non-life have all failed) "10 million failed attempts to do X, does not prove doing X is impossible."
yes you said "life comes only from life" and gave the above (many attempt to produce life from non-lif have failed) as proof. As I said a very miserable attempt - both your proof is false and you "fact" may not be true (probably is not as my "Earth was molten once" suggests.)
No, it is not. I was never silly enough to claim I could prove some physical fact - you did that, but you have not - your only attempt failed miserably - in every aspect!
Perhaps you now understand that proof, is only possible in the realm of mathematics?
Last edited by a moderator:
yes, i will agree that there aren't any 100% proofs.
are we going to get all philosophical about this?
maybe you are misunderstanding me or something.
when i say "proof" i mean some sort of demonstrated test that yields a positive outcome.
saying something happened is not proof.
and as any chemist will tell you demonstrating on paper that something can happen is not proof that it actually can.
i also hope you agree that even demonstrating something in the lab is no proof it can happen in nature.
so when you take all of this together you can easily come to the conclusion that your experiments must be carefully thought out.
the above implies that science usually requires no less than 3 independent tests with almost no overlap in parameters.
Last edited:
so, all of your proof of microevolution isn't actually proof?
have you been drinking billy?
This is what proves you have no grasp of the subject.
- Status