Posted on 11/29/2015 7:27:04 PM PST by TigerLikesRooster
I am no genetic scientist, but my studies have revealed that geneticists have never witnessed a beneficial mutation. Therefore the growth of hair in this species is natural variation, not mutation, and therefore not evolution!
Horses, like bison, evolved on the plains that existed in front of the ancient ice sheets.
The optimum comfort temperature for horses is 40 degrees. They are an animal of the ice age.
A distinction without a difference.
Those pictures are so cold I got hypothermia just looking at them.
Think about that comment...
There’s no difference between humans culling out the ones less adapted to cold or the cold achieving it on its own...
Life is adaptable.
Wil...Burrr!
Adaptation is a step to long range evolutionary mutation
so, on a macroscale, adaptation is evolution
Evolution is adaptive change
Evolution is defined as increasing complexity of an organism through mutation. When you switch a few genes off or on you aren’t adding any information therefore no evolution has occurred.
Which is the application over time of adaptive changes
When you have no additional complexity added to an organism you can’t call it evolution. If you add more genes you add more complexity and then you can call it evolution.
Mongolia is fairly warm/hot in the summer, and rather cold in winter. But you’ve sidestepped my point.
These “scientists” make a big deal over these ponies becoming acclimated to the cold weather over 800 years. When it’s fairly obvious that if they hadn’t adapted in their first winter in the extreme cold, they’d all have died, and we’d be refering to them in the past tense.
Evolution, schmevolution! It’s adaptation, and God’s creatures do it all the time. They were created that way.
Well played!
“There’s no difference between humans culling out the ones less adapted to cold or the cold achieving it on its own...”
Sure there is. Is there a difference between someone punching you in the face and you accidently walking into a door? You might end up with a black eye either way, but the ramifications of the two different acts are enormous. Nature taking its course is one thing, but human beings deliberately manipulating the bloodline in animals to produce a better horse (one better suited to the extreme local environment) is an entirely different kettle of genetically altered fish. First of all, it implies that there was a very deliberate plan that was to be carried out not only over many generations of horse lives, but over some generations of human lives. That shows a level of planning and commitment that is nothing short of astounding in an illiterate, isolated group of people living what are essentially little better than stone age lives. Then there’s the realization that this means whoever did this understood exactly what it was doing, knew how to evaluate what was working and what was not, and so on. We do this today, but we understand genetics. They did this without any scientific understanding of genetics at all.
It you assume (and you know what happens when one assumes) that the Siberian horsed evolved in the MIDDLE of Siberia, not by encroaching on the not quite as bitter margins a little every year, the better adapted ones moving into the areas where they had less competition, i.e. to the colder regions they could tolerate where the others couldn’t.
Look how fast the human race spread just from the desire to get away from the gossips and oppressive chieftains!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.