What would YOU want to hear at church?

[DaSleeper]

Uhm.... Marriage isn't exactly a prerequisite for procreation....

Absolutely.....These days it has nothing to do with procreation:lol:

 

[adopted]

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.

 

[Spade]

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.

Along with the impossible and the absurd.

 

[L Gilbert]

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.

Um, it'll take a long time of devolving to make a noticeable change in a population. We haven't even stopped evolving yet.

Besides that, inbreeding is over-rated. lol In order for an offspring to be affected by genetic recession BOTH parents have to have the very same recessive disorder.

Less Bible and more science might help you out.

 

[Serryah]

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.

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.

 

[L Gilbert]

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.

That, too.

 

[adopted]

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.

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.

Less Bible and more science might help you out.

My degree is in science; although I confess it's not biology. Then again, most people in this discussion probably don't have a degree in biology.

 

[L Gilbert]

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.
I'm no scientist, but that does not stop me from learning a lot about some of it.

 

[adopted]

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.

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?

 

[Serryah]

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 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.

That said, even your Adam/Eve senario brings up the question of selective breeding, or genetic mutations.

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?

 

[L Gilbert]

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 not into predictions without loads of data. It all depends upon what influences the Hox genes.

 

[adopted]

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.

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?

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?

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.

 

[Serryah]

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?

The resulting dog wouldn't be a "Dane" as we know it, but there could be larger dogs than pugs, yes, because that gene for "large dog" is still in the pug make-up. I say "could" because it all depends on availability of food and resources on this "island". Certainly after a few million years, if the population of dogs didn't die out, they wouldn't resemble pugs anyway.

 

[L Gilbert]

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?

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.

 

[Serryah]

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.

LOL - I'd agree with her though?

 

[L Gilbert]

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 this is BS according to you?

You believe in genetics but not evolution as set out for human beings? how very odd. But then you did mention you're not into genetics.

 

[Serryah]

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.

Animal husbandry of back then would have been seriously different than today. Again, it also depends on your POV. Some breeders in today's dog breeding world believe mating father to daughter, brother to sister, mother to son is okay. Some believe uncle to niece, aunt to nephew is okay. I do not agree with either of these.

Either way, whether the offspring is healthy depends on the health of the parents, grandparents and so on. There is a chance that some of the litter would be fine, but also a chance that one or two pups, or more, may have problems. It all comes down to the genetic crap shoot.

I don't know your age, but if you learned that your "cave men" were "hoaxes", then obviously your teacher was not a good teacher. While there have been some hoaxes, there also has been real deals. Maybe you should take a look at the real stuff.

 

[DaSleeper]

So this is BS according to you?

I often see in the forum some recurrence of that recessive gene of that supposed ancestor on the right hand side of the picture......;-)

 

[Ron in Regina]

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.

Really? So without religion, there is no right or wrong? Don't you think
that ethics transcends religion as a survival strategy for communal
living in a social species?

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.

You haven't removed anyone's freedom to disagree, but you're sure condemning others
for it. Have you closed the forum topic? Do you have the ability to do that? You recruiting
strategy isn't working well. If you know your "Preacher" well, perhaps you should have
Her (or Him, whatever...) read through this Thread from start to finish. It might be
enlightening as a self learning tool to listen to this person, and not just their
reading of the Bible.

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.

Nice analogy. Can that also be used with respect to spirituality? You
choose a narrow minded spiritual outlook, and the likelihood of....?

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?

Yes. Selective Breeding. Dogs didn't start off as dogs, but as wolves.
You've seen wolves. Explain the critter in Paris Hilton's purse. Same thing.

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....

 

[Serryah]

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....

I believe I read somewhere that brown eyes are actually dominant to blue and though this island might have all blue eyed people, if any of them carry a brown eyed gene, it'll pop up and then it's only a matter of selection. Just a thought.