Genetic Evidence of Major Changes in Body Shapes

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
a human with wings possibly or scales or the abililty to breath underwater.

​

---

And what would be the purpose of these mutations exactly. Even if human had wings,we could not fly because our bone structure it too heavy. Scales might be usefull to us but then they might also hinder us in some way. Gills to breath underwater? sure,i believe that its concievable but then,we would also have to develope the ability to swim much faster than we do today or we'd fall victim to predators like sharks quite easily. But more to the point,we do not live in environements that require us to develop these mutations to adapt and survive so they wouldn't be much use to ujs anyway.

Penguin, how old are you? Are you still in school?Where is TrueCreation and JohnPaul on this one? They were the ones demanding exactly this type of evidence before they accept evolution. Have they all converted now? Found the true light, ehh?This article has created quite a stir in both the mainstream scientific community and several other e-c forums, with the c's backing down and scrambling all over the place. One C psuedo-scientist made a comment about the discovery and has now been handed his head on a platter because he completely misstated basic facts about the discovery.Come on, Creationists, your silence is deafening.SLD

quote:

---

Originally posted by lbhandli:
Why? Evolution doesn't posit macromutations. Would you care to deal with the actual theory of evolution, or do you feel like you can just make it up?

---

you should talk to sld thensld--"What 24 hours after my post and no creationist response? Come on, we finally have genetic proof of a mechanism for macroevolution. Isn't that what you creationists have been demanding?"------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

quote:

---

Originally posted by LudvanB:
And what would be the purpose of these mutations exactly. Even if human had wings,we could not fly because our bone structure it too heavy. Scales might be usefull to us but then they might also hinder us in some way. Gills to breath underwater? sure,i believe that its concievable but then,we would also have to develope the ability to swim much faster than we do today or we'd fall victim to predators like sharks quite easily. But more to the point,we do not live in environements that require us to develop these mutations to adapt and survive so they wouldn't be much use to ujs anyway.

---

well then you can tell that to your sea cruture that evolved into a land bug.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
well then you can tell that to your sea cruture that evolved into a land bug.

​

---

But there's a marked difference between us and the sea creature that turned into a land bug. We have the brain capacity to adapt our environement to our needs wereas the critters need to adapt themselves to THEIR environement...this is just theory mind you but perhaps the sea creature mentionned in the article became trapped in a land locked lake that was slowly drying up and so,the critter had to adapt itself to this changing environement or else its population faced extinction. makes sense,dont you think?

quote:

---

Originally posted by sld:
Penguin, how old are you? Are you still in school?

​

Where is TrueCreation and JohnPaul on this one? They were the ones demanding exactly this type of evidence before they accept evolution. Have they all converted now? Found the true light, ehh?

​

This article has created quite a stir in both the mainstream scientific community and several other e-c forums, with the c's backing down and scrambling all over the place. One C psuedo-scientist made a comment about the discovery and has now been handed his head on a platter because he completely misstated basic facts about the discovery.

​

Come on, Creationists, your silence is deafening.

​

SLD

---

my age is undetermined, im not sure of when i started thinking on my own. my present physical body is sixteen years of age. the rest of your post is taunting, i think, so ill reply with your head is large in comparison to your body. ------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

quote:

---

Originally posted by LudvanB:
But there's a marked difference between us and the sea creature that turned into a land bug. We have the brain capacity to adapt our environement to our needs wereas the critters need to adapt themselves to THEIR environement...this is just theory mind you but perhaps the sea creature mentionned in the article became trapped in a land locked lake that was slowly drying up and so,the critter had to adapt itself to this changing environement or else its population faced extinction. makes sense,dont you think?

​

---

doesnt that disprove human evolution then? we never need to mutate because of our brain, given to us by God. So we never mutated.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
doesnt that disprove human evolution then? we never need to mutate because of our brain, given to us by God. So we never mutated.

​

---

Not at all...though the principle of mutations is still not quite understood,it does seem to be closely related to environemental concerns. It is possible that we used to mutate heavily at an earlier time and those mutations considerably slowed down when we reached the stage of thinking hominids with the capacity to modify our environement,thus reducing the stress it placed on our adaptive genes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LudvanB:
Not at all...though the principle of mutations is still not quite understood,it does seem to be closely related to environemental concerns. It is possible that we used to mutate heavily at an earlier time and those mutations considerably slowed down when we reached the stage of thinking hominids with the capacity to modify our environement,thus reducing the stress it placed on our adaptive genes.

---

we would have to be evolving ever generation greatly. there is a large difference between now and a hundred years ago.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

or is an accumalation of knowledge evolution?------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

Why? I said macromutation which is not macroevolution. Would you like to learn a little about a subject before commenting on it? Cite a recent reference that claims macromutations are necessary.Cheers,
Larry

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
or is an accumalation of knowledge evolution?

​

---

No you dont understand. Evolution,weather it micro or macro is driven by the stress the environement places on a given species. Evolution,it would seems,is the natural mechanism that living organism are endowed with to respond to that stress. And if you go from there,then it would appear logical that the rate of evolution is directly related to the amount of stress the environement places on living organism. Human beings have a rather unique ability of being capable to almost completely adapt its environement to fit THEIR needs,thus considerably reducing the stress the environement normally imposes on us and by extention,reducing our biological need to "mutate" if you will,to adapt to this environement.

​

[This message has been edited by LudvanB, 02-11-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by LudvanB:
Not at all...though the principle of mutations is still not quite understood,it does seem to be closely related to environemental concerns. It is possible that we used to mutate heavily at an earlier time and those mutations considerably slowed down when we reached the stage of thinking hominids with the capacity to modify our environement,thus reducing the stress it placed on our adaptive genes.

---

Probably not, mutations need to be culled by natural selection. Every organism in a species having too many mtations at one time will result in extinction.Different genes mutate at different rates, there is no evidence that there was a "fast" period, indeed, the problem is, that it is literally lethal.I'm not sure where you get the environment being responsible for mutations. It most certainly is responsible for some, but is it responsible for MOST mutations?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-11-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
we would have to be evolving ever generation greatly. there is a large difference between now and a hundred years ago.

​

---

What great difference is there betweeen now & 100 years ago, that involved the fixing of mutant alleles in the general population? This is what evolution is, after all (they don't have to be mutant, but large change over time means mutant genes).------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:

Probably not, mutations need to be culled by natural selection. Every organism in a species having too many mtations at one time will result in extinction.

​

Different genes mutate at different rates, there is no evidence that there was a "fast" period, indeed, the problem is, that it is literally lethal.

​

I'm not sure where you get the environment being responsible for mutations. It most certainly is responsible for some, but is it responsible for MOST mutations?

​

Mark

​

---

I think so to a degree and this would certainly go a long way toward explaning the crustacean turning into a fly over time...as a result of its changing environement.