Re: Breeding Errors smack down Natural Selection in Evolutionary

On Jun 13, 7:40 pm, family-living <vctin...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 12, 12:38 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:



family-living wrote:

I'm sorry, but that post was incoherent. Let's look at it anyway.

Breeding Errors smack down Natural Selection in Evolutionary Theories

I note: [Columella, a respected Roman scholar and writer
of the first Century A.D., was a very prolific writer on the topic
of animal care and breeding. He recorded and used the term
"veterinarius" for a person who is a caretaker of pigs, sheep
and cattle. (It is interesting to note that the word veterina
was the Roman word for "pack animals". In Rome the term
"souvetaurinarii" was another word that was used for someone
who took care of animals.) Between 42-68 A.D., Columella
wrote 12 volumes of animal-related publications on topics such
as animal breeding, husbandry, and health in livestock. His works
include descriptions of disease, and medication formulae that were
used up into the Middle Ages.]
http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/pubs/VetHistory/vethistory.htm
http://wahvm.vet.uu.nl/specific/resources/graecoromanperiod.html

There seemed to be nothing in that paragraph that is relevent to natural
selection, evolution, or anything on topic.

Breeding appears to have been around for thousands of years.

Well known. So?

"But because genes are often tied to multiple traits, scientists
warn, deliberate selection of certain ones can backfire. The gene
responsible for those silver-coated Labradors, for example,
is tied to skin problems."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/12/science/12dog.html?ex=1339300800&en...

True. Linkage and pleiotropy can affect artificial selection so as to
spread undesirable traits with the desirable ones. Natural selection
doesn't quite work that way, because change must be a compromise among
all the various desirable (selected for) and undesirable (selected
against) traits. If silver coats and skin problems were strongly linked,
silver coats would spread only if the advantage of the color outweighed
the disadvantage of the skin problems. And an individual in which the
color and skin problem became unlinked would have considerable breeding
advantage. Not all that relevant to evolution, though. Is this supposed
to somehow make evolution impossible?

Biblical statements concerning the earth being corrupt,
with all flesh upon the earth being corrupted, are mentioned
during the time of the Patriarch Noah, 2944 to 1994 B.C.
There were giants on the earth in those days that attempted
to take away the life of Noah, indicating from Holy Scripture,
the time frame for the worldwide culmination of the development
and mutation of dinosaurs, plants and other distorted, abnormally
deformed creatures.
http://academic-genealogy.com/ancientandmoderngenealogies.htm

This appears to take some kind of bizarre, young-earth position in which
dinosaurs are mutant monsters, not real species like doggies and
piggies. Aside from the scientific absurdity of YEC, few creationists
would consider dinosaurs to be monsters. I won't even bother to ask for
evidence of any of these contentions.

DNA evidence cannot "prove" exact pedigree genealogy connections.
Carefully note: "DNA evidence, combined with other non-controversial
historical evidence, recently brought to closure the long-suspected
relationship between Thomas Jefferson, or his brother, and Sally
Hemmings." (This should be stated as reasonably connected to
the Jefferson family DNA). Neither can Evolution be "proved" to be
more or less than individual personal speculations and broad based
assumptions, a so called "scientific" mythological family tree, not
grounded in exact factual reality.

Note that the DNA evidence was able to show that the Hemings family
descended either from Th. Jefferson or a close relative. That's exactly
what phylogenetic evidence shows. Fortunately this is enough to show
creationism wrong. You seem to take the position that if we don't know
everything to complete exactness, we know nothing. But that's silly. If
my yardstick is accurate to within 1/32 of an inch, I can't measure the
distance between two points exactly. But if I say they're 27 1/4 inches
apart, the fact that they might really be 27 3/32 inches apart doesn't
seem like a big problem to me. You?

Carefully note the assumptions: "A few generations of human
evolutionary change is but a blink of an eye compared to what
has gone before.

No, not an assumption. We have a very good handle on the age of the
earth, and we know that life is at least 3.5 billion years old, and we
know that humans are related by common descent to all other life.
There's very good evidence for all of this.

It might take 25,000-50,000 generations --
a half million to a million years or more - for really significant
change to occur." Note: "might take".

That all depends on what "really significant" means, doesn't it? We know
that evolutionary change can happen at different rates at different
times. We also know that rates calculated from the fossil record are
orders of magnitude *slower* than rates observed in the present.
Presumably this means that visible changes happen both quickly (over
times we can observe them) and rarely (so they add up over long
geological times) in populations.

Nevertheless, "scientific"
culture believes this to be true, and they use the supernatural
to interpret natural events and to explain the nature of the universe
and humanity; i.e., they cannot be explained from actual laws
and current species living and a part of the observed natural world.

Sure they can. We can't see Niagara Falls receding upstream, but we can
observe the processes that make it happen at the rates necessary to
account for the amount of recession we can infer from the local
geography. Same with evolution.

There is no greater lesson taught: nature's reproducing processes
- the day to day creations in trillions, of "after their own kind".
http://darwiniana.org/intro1.htm

I'm sorry, but that pronouncement requires vast ignorance of biology.
Every individual is a mutant many times over. Most mutations have no
effect. Of those that do have an effect, most that we see have small
effects, and merely introduce additional variation to the population, on
which selection can act. Populations are observed to change due both to
selection and drift. There is no visible mechanism that stops this
change from proceeding indefinitely. And there you are with evolution.

Respectfully yours,

Tom Tinney, Sr.
Who's Who in America,
Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry,
[both editions]
Family Genealogy & History
Internet Education Directory
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/

Are we supposed to be impressed? I'm afraid that I'm not. Your
arguments, if they can be dignified with that name, speak louder about
you than any supposed credentials.

REPLY: The Sintashta fortified settlement in the southern Urals was
excavated
after A.D. 1968 and is scientifically dated to circa 2000 to 1600
B.C. Local
means of transport by horses is shown in these Sintashta chariot
burials, as
factual, undisputed evidence. Chariots are first noted in the Bible
when Joseph,
as prime minister of Egypt, rode the second chariot of Pharaoh
(Genesis 41:43).
Joseph was thirty years old when he married Asenath, the daughter of
Potipherah,
Prince and Priest of On, chronologically validated in the period of
1781/1721 B.C.http://academic-genealogy.com/ancientandmoderngenealogies.htm

Ummm. OK. What does this have to do with evolutionary science? Are you
making a point?


We have additional scientific evidence of the accuracy in a written
record,
back to the Abrahamic time frame, indicating that domestication was an
established fact from the southern Urals to the countries of the
Middle East.
Since at least circa 2000 B. C., there has been no possiblity for any
natural
selection to occur, independent of human intervention by artificial
selection,
"a process by which individuals with traits considered desirable by
human
breeders are systematically favored for reproduction." For over 4,000
years,
therefore, as noted by my coherent statements concerning breeding, re:http://wahvm.vet.uu.nl/specific/resources/graecoromanperiod.html
the natural selection DNA gene pool has been "dirty" and compromised,
from which no intelligent projected theories of origin, can be
rationally established.

This is absolutely bizarre. First, suggestive evidence indicates that
dogs began to diverge 100,000 years ago from the wolves - ten times
earlier than we had thought. We have been domesticating dogs for that
long. It was, or course, unconscious at that point. Same with plant
domestication - as soon as we had settlements, even if only for a few
months out of the year, we started unconsciously selecting plants for
edibility, taste, accessibility, etc. Much like bees selected flowers
to be noticeably colorful, and with landing patterns in the
ultraviolet range. Jared Diamond covers much of this in "Guns, Germs,
and Steel".

This is essentially the same process as natural selection. Colder
winters select for cold resistant morphology or strategies; hunter-
gatherer humans select for wolf-dogs amenable to training and
understanding human wants. This is not a problem for evolutionary
science. Humans breeding plants or animals (or disease germs or cheese
cultures) is a subset of environmental pressures.

What on Earth can you possibly mean by declaring that human breeding
programs have sullied the field? Are you accusing humans of breeding
all species on the planet? Natural selection does not end simply we
have our finger in the pot. This may not be in your genealogy notes,
but humans did not breed the first amphibians, nor T-Rex or
Dinonychus, nor the first angiosperms. Nor the first humans.

I am not sure what kind of misunderstandings and confusions could lead
to this claim. Hint: Darwin consulted breeders for insights into
natural selection.

Kermit

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Origins of Human Violence
    ... Did the earliest humans employ violence against one another, ... It was likely born out of the pressures of sexual selection. ... to have caused quantum-cosmological evolution (as if in a condensation-style ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Challenges for Evolutionary Ethics
    ... Evolution and Reason ... humans employ reason they are not subject to Darwinian ... no group selection is required). ... make mutualised trading groups work our species evolved ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: POTM: Evolution week here at the ranch
    ... We grab a calf and the calf gets roped, ... call such a barbaric process "good") example of evolution. ... The fact that humans do the selecting does not change the fact that it ... the selection because humans are part of the natural world. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Brain Dead People
    ... Evolution is not chance. ... The available changes are by chance, selection result in ... Your positive skew seems to be limited to humans and chimpanzees, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Out-dated theory
    ... selection could get a goldfish gene into a carrot, ... you say that of course genetic engineering ... is necessary because evolution can't do *the exact same things* ... than by selective breeding. ...
    (uk.religion.christian)