Uhm.... Marriage isn't exactly a prerequisite for procreation....
Absolutely.....These days it has nothing to do with procreation:lol:
Uhm.... Marriage isn't exactly a prerequisite for procreation....
Uhm.... Marriage isn't exactly a prerequisite for procreation....
Well, that's changing the subject. But if you want to talk about it, I will say that marriage is a legal/ethical prerequisite for procreation. Of course, you already knew that's something I would believe.
Um, it'll take a long time of devolving to make a noticeable change in a population. We haven't even stopped evolving yet.There was far less genetic mutation back then. (I.E., the opposite of evolution is true -- our DNA has a tendency to degrade over time, as you can see, for example, with the poodle dog breed which is full of mistakes and sicknesses.) To put this into practical terms, the offspring of Cain and his sister were not likely to be mentally handicapped, as the case would be today, and hence the laws forbidding it.
There was far less genetic mutation back then. (I.E., the opposite of evolution is true -- our DNA has a tendency to degrade over time, as you can see, for example, with the poodle dog breed which is full of mistakes and sicknesses.) To put this into practical terms, the offspring of Cain and his sister were not likely to be mentally handicapped, as the case would be today, and hence the laws forbidding it.
Correct -- there are two senses of the term. Jesus was, of course, ethnically an Israelite.
That, too.Wait... what?
Okay, despite the fact you're comparing human genetics to dog (there is no comparison, sorry), the reason that poodles - and other breed dogs - are having issues is... thus far undecided. Depends on what part of the fence you sit. Some blame the inbred genetics of the purebreeds - aka GSD's being so inbred, hip displaysa and other problems have come up - and some thing it has nothing to do with the inbreeding of the dogs, but it's just genetics in general and bad breeding practices.
But you cannot compare generations of dogs to generations of humans. And in a sense - IMO anyway - dog breeds are based on a man made evolution, not a natural one.
Wait... what?
Okay, despite the fact you're comparing human genetics to dog (there is no comparison, sorry), the reason that poodles - and other breed dogs - are having issues is... thus far undecided. Depends on what part of the fence you sit. Some blame the inbred genetics of the purebreeds - like GSD's being so inbred, hip displaysa and other problems have come up - and some think it has nothing to do with the inbreeding of the dogs, but it's just genetics in general and bad breeding practices.
But you cannot compare generations of dogs to generations of humans. And in a sense - IMO anyway - dog breeds are based on a man made evolution, not a natural one.
Less Bible and more science might help you out.
No. Living things have 3 components of DNA, according to recent research. There are "boss" genes (called Hox), switches, and "servant" genes. Hox genes are the bosses, and they tell switches to turn "servant" genes on or off. That is what determines whether, for example, an appendage on an insect will be a leg or an antenna. Genetic information is not lost. It is merely dormant or active.Here's what I'm saying: Adam and Eve had a rich set of genes/genetic possibilities. Similarly, the first dogs had all the dog-genes... but when we go down a narrow path, such as poodle, we remove genetic information, and the likelihood of problems increases.
No. Living things have 3 components of DNA, according to recent research. There are "boss" genes (called Hox), switches, and "servant" genes. Hox genes are the bosses, and they tell switches to turn "servant" genes on or off. That is what determines whether, for example, an appendage on an insect will be a leg or an antenna. Genetic information is not lost. It is merely dormant or active.
Here's what I'm saying: Adam and Eve had a rich set of genes/genetic possibilities. Similarly, the first dogs had all the dog-genes... but when we go down a narrow path, such as poodle, we remove genetic information, and the likelihood of problems increases.
I'm not into predictions without loads of data. It all depends upon what influences the Hox genes.So, if an island contained only pugs, after a few million years there could be dogs as large as Danes? IE, they could recover the gene for large-dogginess?
If an island contained only blue-eyed people, after a few million years they might recover the gene for brown eyes?
I'm thinking you don't know anything about genetics, or at least dog genetics and origins. While it's true the first "dogs" - aka wolves from the East Asian part of the world - are the progenitors of the first dogs and you could say in that respect they had all the dog-genes, you're really simplifying how the dog breeds came about.
The genetic information for the original ancestor isn't really removed, it's just been bred into the very, very, very far background genetically after so many generations of breeding dogs. No, you can't make a Chihuahua a wolf but if you really wanted to, and you really researched it, I believe you could take a Chihuahua and breed a male to a female of a larger breed of dog with certain traits, and continue to breed until you have something wolf-like (as no dog can ever be wolf unless you REALLY get specific). Or give us 15,000 years to breed the Chihuahua back up to something wolf like.
Here's a question for you; what about Neanderthals? Proven last year that some Neanderthal DNA exists in humans today, meaning there was breeding between the two humanoid types. Or do they even figure in your world?
So, if an island contained only pugs, after a few million years there could be dogs as large as Danes? IE, they could recover the gene for large-dogginess?
If an island contained only blue-eyed people, after a few million years they might recover the gene for brown eyes?
hehe Wife is an anthropologist and for years she's been saying that there must be two subspecies of humans; one is homo sapiens sapiens and the other is basically homo not-so-sapien sapien. lolHere's a question for you; what about Neanderthals? Proven last year that some Neanderthal DNA exists in humans today, meaning there was breeding between the two humanoid types. Or do they even figure in your world?
hehe Wife is an anthropologist and for years she's been saying that there must be two subspecies of humans; one is homo sapiens sapiens and the other is basically homo not-so-sapien sapien. lol
Had to share that.
So this is BS according to you?Correct, I don't believe in neanderthals. A couple of the "cave-men" that I learned in grade 7 "science" class turned out to be hoaxes.
So... if the first "dogs" from East Asia mated with their sisters, would they be more or less likely to have healthy offspring than if a poodle in 2012 mated with his sister?
Correct, I don't believe in neanderthals. A couple of the "cave-men" that I learned in grade 7 "science" class turned out to be hoaxes.
I often see in the forum some recurrence of that recessive gene of that supposed ancestor on the right hand side of the picture......;-)So this is BS according to you?
ethics is about a sense of right versus wrong. if there is no God, and our universe is an accident, and we evolved from goo, then there is no source or meaning for ethics.
If pointing people to the Son of God as the source of truth and salvation is a self-righteous thing to do, then I'm definitely self-righteous.
Which one of us here is not preaching what we believe to be true? By your definition then, we are all self-righteous.
But if I have found this one thing to be true, that Jesus Christ is the righteous Son of God and the Savior of the world, then this one thing I will say again and again. I would be a criminal to deny it.
Have I removed your freedom to disagree? Have I closed the forum topic? You're inventing false accusations.
Nice analogy. Can that also be used with respect to spirituality? YouHere's what I'm saying: Adam and Eve had a rich set of genes/genetic possibilities. Similarly, the first dogs had all the dog-genes... but when we go down a narrow path, such as poodle, we remove genetic information, and the likelihood of problems increases.
Yes. Selective Breeding. Dogs didn't start off as dogs, but as wolves.So, if an island contained only pugs, after a few million years there could be dogs as large as Danes? IE, they could recover the gene for large-dogginess?
If an island contained only blue-eyed people, after a few million years they might recover the gene for brown eyes?
Yes. Selective Breeding. Eventually the gene for Brown eyes will
pop up....and things can take off from there. There are recessive
genes that can account for Brown eyes eventually popping up.
Same with tails (it happens), & you have to go back somewhat
further than the cavemen you don't believe in for tails to work into
your genes....