Thread 717734808

Pugs are actually a great example of the biological limitations of mutation

Mutations over time always result in a decrease of genetic information, they're overwhelmingly deleterious

The pug for example lost it's genetic information for the snout

It was through artificial selection rather than natural selection, but it shows the limits of what mutation itself is biologically capable of.

Sit there for 20 gorillion years and you won't get anything but increasingly retarded dog-like creatures, it will never turn into a different kind of animal, it will never grow wings, it will never fly, it will never start laying eggs

Mutations aren't capable of these kinds of things through small random changes over any time period

>>717734808 (OP)
hey isn't that the actress they got for the new little mermaid movie?

>>717734949
what the fuck are you talking about

the problem with pugs is they were selectively bred to have shorter and shorter snouts, they didn't 'lose' anything, that's a big part of the problem; all their sinus pathways are still there, but smushed into a fucked up pancake face. it's why they sound like they're struggling to breathe all the time: they are. when a pug gets intubated they practically get high on having a normal amount of oxygen and unobstructed airways for the first time.

>>717735249
Yes they lost the DNA/genetic information for their snouts

Poodles lost the DNA/genetic information that tells their hair to stop growing

American bullies lost their DNA/genetic information for proper bone structure

They came from grey wolves and only got worse than the original grey wolf.

There's no known way that mutations can create new never-before-seen information, what we OBSERVE is over time they cause a loss of genetic information

Darwinists believe the opposite despite observational science to the contrary, and that it has no limits.

Natural selection is real but it has limits.

It SELECTS from what is already there, it's a reductive filter.

The Darwinist belief that it has no limits is not backed by science.

>>717735516
>he believes in genetic entropy
lol lmao even

>>717734949
>>717735516
This guy is baiting
Nobody is retarded enough to think artificial selection (which by itself proves natural selection as it proves all the principles of natural selection) is natural selection.

>>717735660
Well yes. Artificial selection proves that you don't need surnatural causes for the emergence of diversity. However I'm 100% sure he believes that nonsense about "losing genetic information"