Evolution

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Sep 24 2006, 02:31 PM) [snapback]324356[/snapback]</div>

Several beneficial human mutations have already been named.... here's another: Ability to drink cow milk.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Sep 24 2006, 10:45 AM) [snapback]324321[/snapback]</div>

Neither one of those would shake my faith, one would affirm what the Bible says and the other would reveal not only the miracle of life but the genius of man that was created in the image of God. [attachmentid=5156]

[attachmentid=5157] Wildkow

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Sep 24 2006, 12:33 PM) [snapback]324357[/snapback]</div>

Nope those are adaptations not mutations. I'm talking about def: 3 below. We really need to get a handle on what we are talking about here! Can't just keep slinging the the word Evolution around as a blanket statement. When I address the topic of evolution I am always talking about the evolution that means one species changing into a wholly and completely different species. That is Macro-Ecolution the other is Micro-Evolution and I usually refer to that as Adaptation, most of the time.

Wildkow

Main Entry: mu·ta·tion
Pronunciation: myü-'tA-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : a significant and basic alteration : CHANGE
2 : UMLAUT
3 a : a relatively permanent change in hereditary material involving either a physical change in chromosome relations or a biochemical change in the codons that make up genes; also : the process of producing a mutation b : an individual, strain, or trait resulting from mutation

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Sep 24 2006, 02:47 PM) [snapback]324359[/snapback]</div>

No actually, they are mutations. Tolarance of cow milk in humans fits the definition you cite. It is a genetic mutation. You asked for one mutation. To form a new species you need a lot more than one.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Sep 24 2006, 01:45 PM) [snapback]324321[/snapback]</div>

Well, yes, but what if you are wrong, and there is an afterlife? So what's the harm in that? IF you are right, and there is no afterlife, then who cares? No one will notice. BUT, if I am right, and there is an afterlife, won't that bother you if you don't get to enjoy it?

Religion sucks. It tends to ruin things.

Me too.

Who knows? Not me.

Again, Religion is bull. Christ, is real. His message is real. Religion ruins it.

 

Frankly, I can't believe that this is even a debate. In this regard, America is the laughing stock of the developed world.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(wilco @ Sep 24 2006, 03:43 PM) [snapback]324378[/snapback]</div>

Sadly, in this regard, and many others.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Sep 24 2006, 03:31 PM) [snapback]324356[/snapback]</div>

i think i've already gone over this in multiple other threads, wildkow...

here's one more.

we know moths that blend in with their surroundings are much better equipped to evade predation, right? the predator is less likely to see a moth that looks like tree bark than one that's white or black.

well pigmentation gene mutations that created a mottled appearance allowed the moths that blended in better to survive longer than all black or all white moths. these moths are more likely to reproduce, so those genes are paseed on to future generations. and no, that's not an adaptation, that's a genetic change.

hey here's an idea. how about rather than asking pointless questions we've all gone round and round before, presenting a coherent and relevant debate refuting someone else's argument? rather than your one liners which tend to get old.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Sep 24 2006, 12:31 PM) [snapback]324356[/snapback]</div>

Virtually every gene in our entire genome is the result of a long series of mutations. In most cases, mutations that survive are minor, and have just a very minor effect, resulting in a slight reproductive advantage, which becomes statistically significant only over a period of many generations. They usually result in a protein having a slightly different shape, which makes a chemical process run a little differently. It is the accumulation of a tremendous number of such mutations that result in observable changes.

Mutations that cause big changes are usually deleterious, as are most mutations. Only a very few are beneficial. But that's enough. However, occasionally observable differences are beneficial, and I believe somewhere earlier in this very thread someone listed a few specific mutations in human genes that had beneficial effects.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Sep 23 2006, 10:02 PM) [snapback]324144[/snapback]</div>

Considering the vast number of kinds of bacteria, I presume you are refering to the fact that all bacteria are single-celled organisms. Bacteria are prokaryotes, meaning they lack a nucleus. Multicellular organisms are all eukaryotes (they have a nucleus) (though not all eukaryotes are multi-cellular).

But this doers not mean that bacteria do not evolve into other "kinds." It is probable that the organelles in all eukaryotes evolved from bacteria that were ingestged but not digested!

On the other hand, your assertion that no bacteria ever evolved into something other than bacteria is devoid of evidence. Again, you are claiming that, because bacteria have not evolved into something other than bacteria in the brief period that humans have had microscopes powerful enough to view them, that they cannot, or have not, or will not. Your argument is invalid because you are looking at too brief a time frame.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Sep 24 2006, 10:45 AM) [snapback]324321[/snapback]</div>

There is no such computer as you assert. Thoughts exist only in brains. Computers do nothing but process symbols.

And the symbol of the cross derives from the method the Romans used to execute criminals from the lower social classes. It's kind of like if a religion had as its symbol an electric chair, or a gallows. The fact that Christians take their holiest symbol from Jesus's death, rather than from his life, is telling, and I find it quite ghoulish.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Randy @ Sep 23 2006, 11:09 PM) [snapback]324163[/snapback]</div>

I'm always skeptical of rabid evangelists who claim to have once been rabid atheists. It's such an easy and cheap argument to assert "I used to believe what you believe, but I saw the error of my ways." For one thing, as an argument it is worthless. What you used to believe, and what you believe now, are not arguments for your position. They present no evidence, no logic, no argument. And as often as not, they are not even true. They are merely stated for their emotional effect. And furthermore, they are admissions that you were or are wrong, and if you are so mixed-up that you change that easily, then the mere fact of your present state of belief is even less of a reason for anyone else to believe as you do.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Sep 24 2006, 01:50 PM) [snapback]324381[/snapback]</div>

One question if you will please answer. Are you talking about the Peppered Moth?


The problem is that there is no increase in complexity occurring and therefore NO EVOLUTION ! Your example speaks of light and dark colored moths. Nothing more. The only change occurring here is the color distribution in the population. There are both light and dark colored moths present at the beginning of your example and light and dark colored moths in the end. No new trait has been acquired in fact the gene trait already exists per your example. You are talking once again about Micro-Evolution (Adaptation) not Macro-Evolution which I have no quibble over (Micro/Adaptation) and in fact am as much an adherent to as any of you, but that does not show a shift of one species into another or a gene mutation.

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Sep 24 2006, 01:59 PM) [snapback]324382[/snapback]</div>

Are you sure you want to use this as an example of a benefical mutation . . . ? :huh:

Sickle-cell disease is a general term for a group of genetic disorders caused by sickle hemoglobin (Hgb S or Hb S). In many forms of the disease, the red blood cells change shape upon deoxygenation because of polymerization of the abnormal sickle hemoglobin. This process damages the red blood cell membrane, and can cause the cells to become stuck in blood vessels. This deprives the downstream tissues of oxygen and causes ischemia and infarction. The disease is chronic and lifelong. Individuals are most often well, but their lives are punctuated by periodic painful attacks. In addition to periodic pain, there may be damage of internal organs, such as stroke. Lifespan is often shortened with sufferers living to an average of 40 years. It is common in people from parts of the world where malaria is or was common, especially in sub-saharan Africa or in descendents of those peoples. Sickle-cell disease can occur in any individual of any color or ethnicity, however.

Sickle Cell disease

Wildkow

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Sep 23 2006, 03:49 PM) [snapback]324045[/snapback]</div>

Haven't you every heard the saying "Don't judge a book by it's cover."?

Wildkow

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Sep 24 2006, 06:14 PM) [snapback]324461[/snapback]</div>

Do any of the other evolunist on this board agree with this? Speak now or forever hold your peace. I think you mean something entirely different but the way you put it down would probably elicit howls from other believers in evolution. Try this . . . The Growth of Complexity

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Sep 24 2006, 09:01 PM) [snapback]324458[/snapback]</div>

a change in gene expression is occurring, providing a reproductive advantage.

what causes gene expression to change from the status quo? random mutations. otherwise there would be no reason for the expression patterns to change.

the biochemistry behind the pigmentation is not known, but typically dark colors result from the production of melanin, and white colors are a result of an interruption of the production of the pigment molecule. just going on the assumption that this is the case here, something is allowing the pathway to run to completion in some areas of the surface of the organism and not in some others, creating a mottled appearance.

so yes, there is an increase in complexity. rather than having all or nothing pigmentation, there is both presence and absence of pigmentation in the same organism.

a single gene mutation will never give rise to a new species, because of the sheer number of genes/proteins that are responsible for maintaining a living cell, much less a living organism!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Sep 24 2006, 06:53 PM) [snapback]324484[/snapback]</div>

Pretty please tell me if you were referring to the Peppered Moth?

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Sep 24 2006, 08:35 PM) [snapback]324464[/snapback]</div>

Complexity is not necessary for evolution. A mutation is simply a mix-up in the genetic instructions. The mix-up may be the replacement of one or more nucleotide for others, the accidental insertion of one or more nucleotides, or the accidental omission of one or more nucleotides. It is certainly possible for an omission (a simplification of the genetic code) to benefit the individual, and eventually the species.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(wilco @ Sep 24 2006, 04:43 PM) [snapback]324378[/snapback]</div>

Really? I don't think so. In most of the rest of the world, they can't even have this debate.

We can. Freedom of speech and all that.

What disturbs me more, here on this board at least, is the almost mean spirited responses, (some) of you have had towards those who may not believe like you do.

It's not cool, at least in my book, to just mock someone, if you don't believe in what they believe. Many people, scientists as well as non scientists, don't buy evolution. And if this was a fact set in stone, then there would be little debate.

Why is it so hard to just accept that there are mysteries to life, that we may never understand? Not just evolution, but how we got here, what started it all. It's much more complex then a lot of us understand. If God did not create the universe, what did? What was there, before nothing was there? How did something, come from nothing? Did two atoms just pop into existence, and boom, there we are?

Again, you can choose to believe what you wish. You can change your mind if you wish. You can stand firm with what you wish. But, I would ask that some of you could respect the opinions of others, and not just mock them.

If the rest of the world is laughing at America, it's because they can't believe we can't be civil with one another.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Sep 23 2006, 10:01 PM) [snapback]324141[/snapback]</div>

We rarely agree on anything, daniel, but here we do agree. The anti-evolution folks are not even speaking the same language; they have formulated the argument as part of the "culture wars", and therefore will continue to come up with what is, to science, nonsense. Science will continue to try and reply in a scientific manner, which takes time and effort that the scientists can ill afford. I would add to your "uneducated" that even very intelligent people who are not trained in the sciences can be fooled by this nonsense.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Sep 23 2006, 10:01 PM) [snapback]324141[/snapback]</div>

I disagree. (Didn't want anyone to have a heart attack.)

But back to the subject ... one of my favorite sites, that I think other evolutionists here will enjoy, is at http://www.pandasthumb.org/ ... they "speak back" in the language of the creationists and their illegitimate children, the ID crowd, but maintain cites to peer reviewed articles when necessary.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Sep 24 2006, 08:52 PM) [snapback]324521[/snapback]</div>

I didn't say "most of the rest of the world". I said developed world, because when you're too busy trying not to starve to death, get hit by a bullet, or step on a land mine, you don't have much time left over to argue with strangers on the net. But aside from a few theocracies and totalitarian regimes in the Middle East and Asia, the rest of the developed world does enjoy the same level of free speech as we do. The idea that America has a corner on the market for freedom is just rhetoric for political speeches.

I think it may have already been mentioned in this thread, but it bears repeating... Michigan State University conducted a survey of 32 European countries, Japan, and the US that indicated "only Turkey is less willing than the US to accept evolution as fact."

As for mocking anyone, did I do that? I don't think I did, but if you've picked up on a 'tone', it's not intentional, and I mean no offense.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Sep 24 2006, 07:24 PM) [snapback]324495[/snapback]</div>

Well just to be clear even L. Harrison Matthews who wrote the foreword for the 1971 edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species, said that the peppered moth showed only natural selection, but not ‘evolution in action.’
Your example says that a night release would have been more true to nature, why is that? Do the moth eating birds pursue their prey a night?!? That’s doubtful Heh, this talkorgins guy makes these claims and yet supports them with no credible reason as to the why and no credible facts as to importance of releasing them at night. He also claims that all the other observations support the story, good grief that is indeed a stretch! The claim is that different colorations on trees due to pollution cause a Macro-evolutionary change in the moths to change from light colored moths to darker colored moths to avoid predation of birds. After thousands of observations over a time sapn of 25-40 years only two were observed sitting on trees and only one was on the appropriate background! I guess those two must have passed it on to the others. Further more other scientist have stated other reasons for the change in color, see below.

His second example even gives you a very plausible reason why the moths changed color patterns and it wasn't because of natural selection or adaptation to predatory influences. It was because pollution probably caused some type of chemical/biological change which either induced or repressed the mechanism of melanism.

Furthermore these moths are described as having a mottled appearance which indicates that they had both light and dark colored pigments and therefore is not a indication of a change but one of a regressive gene becoming more dominate. University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne who agrees that the peppered moth story, which was ‘the prize horse in our stable,’ has to be thrown out.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i3/moths.asp

Wildkow

p.s. Other studies have shown a very poor correlation between the lichen covering and the respective moth populations. And when one group of researchers glued dead moths onto trunks in an unpolluted forest, the birds took more of the dark (less camouflaged) ones, as expected. But their traps captured four times as many dark moths as light ones—the opposite of textbook predictions!