What if Monkeys devolved from Humans? What if Aliens brought Monkeys back in time from hundreds of millions of years to show us What the dumb humans eventually devolve into? What if this whole theory of evolution, that you speak of, should actually be a theory of devolution?

1. No political Agenda.
2. Neither "pro" evolution or "against" it.
3.Wants Aldeer to tell him how he is "wrong"
4.Wants to convince some one to change their ways.

To me it looks like you clearly believe in evolution, and that's fine by me. I've got no power to tell people what to believe in, But If you believe in it, Own it.

Jbatey, you're need to bone up on reading comprehension

All along I've said that you should be consistent. Really that's it. I am trying to convince you to be consistent, not to believe in evolution. If you reject evolution, the idea of culling a buck so he doesn't pass on his crappy genetics just doesn't make any sense.

People are confused on this thread because to compare cull deer to evolution is a bad analogy. Artificially removing animal x can in no way promote animal y to genetically change. You can promote certain desirable traits to be passed on but that is not evolution.

I believe you should call it survival of the fittest. If it were evolution then would deer not grow smaller and more uneven racks.
Then would that not be adapting to their environment. But then killing undesirable deer to improve your heard in my opinion would be more like playing God.

there is a huge difference in evolution and genetics
apes are a totally different genetic chain

Wow, didn't read every post, but your practicing "genetics" not evolution.

Rem you forget one thing thru your whole thread. The doe contributes 1/2 the traits. so you would also have to kill the bucks mother. This thing is so full of holes its a waste of time to continue.

I think there were diffrent species of monkey humans , and some didn't make it some did. Doesn't mean that there is no God by any means. I can see where you are going with comparing evolution to culling bucks .. But its really not the same, To answer your question though . "IF"everyone were to shoot "ONLY" inferior bucks for a 1000 years and no one were to take any trophy deer. Yes I believe deer would eventually evolve into bigger racked deer, but to cull bucks thinking it's going to have an impact on genetic makeup of the herd the short term in our lifetime on free range deer . I dont think so .

Macro evolution as taught by the masses has never been proved as science and never will be. Its a theory and a foolish one at that. There is plenty of real science that shows the fraud of the evolution theories.




As far as the original post I would have to agree with others that you have gone astray with your comparison of evolution to shooting cull bucks.

Not sure how this ended up in "serious deer talk", but I think you're missing the difference in micro-evolution and macro-evolution, Remington. What you're talking about with the deer population might be considered "microevolution" though it could obviously be (and is) argued that that's a stretch. There are clearer examples of "microevolution" (such as a moth in london that was predominately white before the industrial revolution, and became predominately black afterwards due to soot and predatory selection), but it's a big leap between color pattern changes within a moth population (or rack size in a herd of deer) and changing to a different species.

Either way, this is the only troll-food I'll be offering in this discussion.

-GB

P.S. Remington, no offense intended to you, but the post smacks of internet-trollism and i'm just calling it like I see it.

Remington, I absolutely see where you are coming from and agree with it should be one or another - believe in evolution and think you can change the "genetic traits" of a deer herd or don't believe in evolution and think changing genetic traits is impossible. That would be the consistent position. You also are seeing why I rarely engage in debate on this forum

No, evolution of man coming from monkeys is a theory not a fact, but evolution does and has always occurred.

I don't see this as a one or the other proposition at all. Selective breeding, particularly of species with a well researched genome such as cattle, is accepted and usually beneficial. While there has been much debate over the efficacy of doing so in wild, free ranging animals like deer, it has certainly been demonstrated that traits such as antlers can be manipulated in this species in a captive setting.

You can call that selective breeding, genetic manipulation, evolution, heterozygosity, whatever. If I read correctly, the original post inferred that one could not practice the "culling" of male white-tails in hopes of improved phenotypic traits (regardless of whether it is actually efficacious)while simultaneously denying the "religion" of evolution. In other words, one must believe that random circumstances produced a single celled organism (with intact, functioning DNA)that, over millions, billions, or trillions of years, produced the diversity of plant and animal life found on the planet today.

That is a specious argument. I read where others correctly tried to define the semantics of this debate by addressing macro-evolution or origins of life as it is viewed in true evolutionary disciple dogma. However, that didn't seem to resonate and the poster (and some others) continued to assert that if you "believed" in culling deer then you weren't consistent in your core beliefs if you also did not believe in evolution down to it's irreducible, fundamental elements; those elements being life occurred as a random accident and has progressed to the complexity we observe today.

That's not comparing apples to apples unless you are talking about road apples. I know better than to click send on this but will do it anyway but I've said my peace and don't intend to engage in any debate on this matter. Just giving my opinion as I m free to do.

You are confusing microevolution with macroevolution.

Change absolutely occurs WITHIN a species, which is microevolution. Microevolution can be observed.

However, by killing certain bucks, you will never change a deer into another species as in the theory of macroevolution. It will ALWAYS still be a deer. There is no evidence of macroevolution in animals. Fully formed animals appeared abruptly in the fossil record. True science is observable and can be repeated through experimentation. There is a reason it is still a theory, because they can't prove it in any way. The fossil record doesn't support it and what is observed is that EVERYTHING reproduces after it's own kind.

My comprehension levels are fine.

Your presentation makes no sense, as many have already stated.

To clarify, If it's needed, I do not believe that someone like me, who hunts 1500 acres can use the "cull" theory to any advantage whatsoever.

Don't confuse the Theory of Evolution as it applies to natural selection to the Theory of Evolution as it applies to creationism. They can be, and are in my mind, mutually exclusive from each other. In other words, I believe that species can adapt and change over time and the most fit in the population survive and pass on their genes, but I don't believe that man started as an amoeba which somehow came to life and eventually became a monkey before becoming a man.

I've read through this and there seems to be a large lack of real understanding of definitions: Macroevolution, microevolution, natural selection, adaptation, artificial selection, creation theory and so on.

"Evolution" in general is thought to be the creation of new distinct species over long ages by way of genetic changes through natural selection processes. Somehow in the cosmos new genetic information was created by random chance-selection-environment resulting in new species with new genetics. This is macroevolution.

The flaw? This creation of NEW genetic information has never ever been proven or even documented anywhere.

What has been documented is the LOSS of genetic information from mutations that results in a change in an animal or organism. Second Law of Thermodynamics is at work here---decay happens and all things lead to state of breakdown and chaos.

Microevolution on the other hand refers to the adaptations and small genetic changes based on several variables--largely environmental-- that happen to create small changes within a species but doesn't create a new species.

The creationist argument against evolution is against the idea of NEW genetic information being formed and passed along to somehow create NEW species or manifestation of NEW genetic information that improves/alters an existing species. Micro changes happen, genetics do indeed change and alter things through loss of genetic information, selection and adaptation are real---most knowledgeable creationists would agree with this.

Biblically speaking, God created all the different kinds. From these kinds is is reasonable to assume the dog kind over time lead to different sub-species of dogs but each could still interbreed with each other. Same with cat kind. Deer kind. etc... That allows for micro changes, adaptation, selection even within a kind. Also allows for wide variation within a kind. But always with interbreeding possible. Think not species, but genus or family scientific classification.

Now I'd don't know how culling bucks will change the herd on a property long term. No interest really. But I do know what most refer to as "evolution" is false.

If you consider the literal version of Genesis, to explain all creation, you must accept the notion that ALL species of animals and plants coexisted at some point in time. Also you must accept that since that time, there has been a continuous extinction that is ongoing today. What the fossil record does not support, is a coexistence of ALL flora and fauna. This is readily observable in geological or paleontological record .

Yes, evolution is a theory and by its own tenants it can not be considered scientific fact because it is not repeatable with consistent results. Evolution as theory, has been refined to consider that genetic advantages are selected randomly by random events in the environment of a organism. You might start out with the same genetic profile but the random events will produce something different each time.

One of the problems in this discussion is the definition of "species" from the start. The original efforts in taxonomy relied only on observable physical traits of a given organism. There was no understanding of DNA or RNA until 1869 and was another 90 years before its role in cellular reproduction was understood at any level. The point being, that certain organisms may be more closely related genetically than can be observed physically.

At the time the story of Genesis was being written (recorded) there was no understanding of genetics (as we understand it), there was no mention of electricity, no mention of mechanical locomotion, no mention of powered flight , no mention of electronic data storage or transmission, no mention of nuclear theory or its application . All of these things were waiting to be "Discovered" and understood to some degree. God, has allowed all of these things to come to fruition. Why should we not allow for the understanding of how this true "miracle of life" functions and adapts, as we humans become MORE AWARE of our environment ?

Oh yea, intentional manipulation of a species does not relate to NATURAL random selection.

Dang this thread is too deep for me, makes my head hurt.

Wouldn't shooting to change genetics actually be altering evolution?