Posted on 12/16/2002 6:21:39 PM PST by dennisw
Dogs, foxes Family Canidae
Cats, Family felidae
It appears you are over scaredizing.
Am I supposed to organize your thoughts---philosophy for you...is it possible?
"Measurable change in a population" and "evolution" are two different things. What is the NEW gene or genotype in the example referred to in the article, and how does one know (in a scientific sense) that whatever characteristics present in the surivors was not already inherent in the precursor genes? In short, what is the identification of the "new" gene(s)?
How is this domestication experiment any different than a filter or a culture media in a lab that would not create anything?
Cordially,
The article discusses this, but of course, you have to read the article.
Mutations occur all the time. The Rex cat, with its extremely fine hair, is a mutant. Admittedly you would need some DNA work to prove this, but you cannot get rex cats through normal breeding programs.
A blue whale is a blue whale is a blue whale....
Now breed it to become a humpback whale and I'm sold.
Or try this...
A chimp is a chimp is a chimp is a chimp is a chimp.....
Now breed it to become a human and I'm sold.
If I were you I'd start with the chimp, they are 99% compatible.
So close................................................... yet so far away.
Evo drones/trolls around the clock on the fr!
The article discusses this, but of course, you have to read the article.
No it does not. There has been no genetic comparison of the foxes, even though that could be easily accomplished. It is a good example of the emptiness of evo 'science". They can easily verify whether the new foxes have changed genetically but they cannot be bothered doing it the rigth way. Instead they assume what they want to prove (besides if they really tested their assumptions they may be proven wrong!).
Anyways, these foxes are still the same species. Breeding does not create new genes, it just selects some varitions of genes from the existing gene pool. It is therefore not evolution. In fact the high adaptability and plasticity of species disproves evolution - species do not have to mutate to adapt, they already have the genes within them to adapt to different situations and environments.
A blue whale is a blue whale is a blue whale....
Now breed it to become a humpback whale and I'm sold.
OK, Not with Whales but how about breeding a carp into a goldfish
From a simple carp we now have many breeds of goldfish which are a different species from the original, Many breeds of goldfish are so different from one another they can't breed with each other.
Stop in your local petshop and look, The differences are stagering
Goldfish come in many colors (Reds, Whites, Blues and blacks)while the original carp was a browish monocolor
All Goldfish lost the barbles on their mouth the original carp had
Unlike the carp Most breeds of goldfish have 2 tails, Some lack the dorsal fin.
Most goldfish are Egg shaped while the carp (and the common goldfish) are cigar shaped.
Some types of goldfish have bubble sacks around there eyes. So a whole new organ that wasn't there before was developed.
Many types of goldfish have (for lack of a better word) growth on their heads, like a mane. Most notably the Lionheads & Orandas.
Some types of goldfish like the Pearlscale have unique types of scales
Now Goldfish were breed from the carp in ~1000 AD, So in just a thousand years we were able to breed animals with all kinds of different traits than it's original ancestors, So it isn't inconceivable that over 5 billion years which is 5 million times the amount of time all creatures we see today.
Do the math.
I not sure of the exact numbers but even if goldfish are 99.999% genetically similar to their original carp ancestor that would show it is possible to genetically change an animal 0.001% over 1000 years. So in 5 billion years it will be possible to genetically change an animal 5000% and currently I believe there isn't a lifeform that is more than 50% different DNA wise from anyother lifeform.
Actually the 99% is not correct and is in fact not a scientific fact. Even then though do you realize what a task it would be to bridge that gap? With the human genome being 3 billion DNA bases long it means you would need some 30,000,000 successful and favorable mutations to transform a chimp into a man an utterly impossible occurrence in the time allotted.
No I don't because I don't lie. That is a question that you should be aiming inwardly. Again, you flat out refuse to answer my questions...your education...or there lack off, is showing.
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.