Its funny how evolutionists can go on and on off topic as well as insult me and yet the moderators never say a word. I mentioned new function earlier and was immediately red tagged on this thread.
If you are experiencing problems with discussion or moderation then you should take those issues to the Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 thread.
The topic is about the evidence for beneficial mutations, which is mutations that can produce a benefit in a single generation. It is not about the evidence for the evolution of entire new functions, which take many, many generations. Please take discussion of new functions to a thread where it would be on topic, for example, Evolving the Musculoskeletal System.
To everyone: Please keep the focus of discussion strictly on the topic. Please avoid comments about how wonderfully you're doing or how terribly your opponents are doing. Avoid making any comments about your opponents at all.
I believe a mutation can modify a function but not create an entirely new function.
We agree with you. That's exactly how mainstream evolutionary theory describes matters. New features, almost without exception, are simply modifications of old features. Often after duplication freed up one copy for modification.
A NEW function and a MODIFIED function are two entirely different classifications so let me clarify.
This is where you are wrong. Functions are not discrete entities. Take a feather for example. A feather is a modified scale (we know this because of the proteins involved in its formation, the proteins involved in its structure, homologies with other organisms, and the developmental processes through which it goes). A scale's primary function is protection. Simple feathers, similar to those found today on many birds, and in the fossil record on many dinosaurs, are a small modification of a scale. A small shift in the timing of various development signals causes the production of a small branched structure. These "downy" feathers provide insulation.
A few further small modifications turn these downy feathers into stiffer, straight structures similar to those that appear to be present on pre-avian running dinosaurs. These were probably primarily used for signalling, but may have also had an aerodynamic role. And then, finally, you have the true flight feathers, capable of directing the flow of air, and providing a light, stiff-but-flexible, large flight area. A new function, but no abrupt change, just modification of existing function.
The same with the wing bones themselves (in bats, birds and pterosaurs, in fact); no new bones, no new muscle groups, just modification of the proportions of existing bones leading, eventually, to a new function.
Percy said this isn't the thread to discuss new function so I will decline to refute the several points I disagree with you about.
You've had five replies waiting for you for over a week over at your Evolving the Musculoskeletal System thread, see your Message 232. That would be an excellent thread to discuss the evolution of new functions. You can also respond to Mr Jack's post over there, just be sure to be clear that you're responding to a message from another thread.
The Sand Hills of Nebraska formed over a period from 15,000 to 8,000 years ago, and deer mice in this region have lighter fur than deer mice elsewhere. Genetic analysis reveals that a mutation for lighter fur occurred in the Agouti gene about 4,000 years ago, evidently as a protective measure. Light-colored deer mice have an estimated 0.5% better chance of survival in the light-colored sands, and over a few thousand years this has caused light coloration to become dominant in the Sand Hills.
You've had five replies waiting for you for over a week over at your Evolving the Musculoskeletal System thread, see your Message 232. That would be an excellent thread to discuss the evolution of new functions. You can also respond to Mr Jack's post over there, just be sure to be clear that you're responding to a message from another thread.
OK, thanks Percy. Can I start out with "back by popular demand"?...Yeah right, as the guy you love to gang up on
Actually, I have more questions than ever with the many things that aren't lining up with what you guys have been proclaiming. So I think I WILL revisit that thread for some more robust sword fighting. I don't have the time to devote as so many of you seem to have but I will be back over there soon.
well yes - the first two happened in the lab, the second two aren't present in the entirety of the population and are a minority, ergo unless godidit they are relatively recent mutations which can be backtracked by some sleuthing to find out when and where they came from...
The first two didn't happen in the lab. The first one was the AIDS resistance mutation in humans. This has been around for centuries.
I also don't think it's clear that it provides any resistance to the Black Death. This was just a hypothesis to explain why models suggested it spread in Europe about 700 years ago.
Don't forget retroviruses- They are currently believed is how new innovations occur and because they are involved in regulatory functions that they can modify bone structure, scales into feathers, etc. The fact that they are species specific and target a specific chromosome in alteration is important. Creation vs evolution debate will continue because retroviruses can be viewed either way.
Don't forget retroviruses- They are currently believed is how new innovations occur and because they are involved in regulatory functions that they can modify bone structure, scales into feathers, etc. The fact that they are species specific and target a specific chromosome in alteration is important.
This sounds pretty confused, could you give us some links to where you are getting this information from? Or a much clearer explanation of what you are saying?
Creation vs evolution debate will continue because retroviruses can be viewed either way.
No, the debate will continue because no matter what the evidence the creationists will persist is viewing it in such a way that it can be shoehorned into their belief system making up new ad hoc explanation as they go along. Just look at any of the threads about genetic information to see the frequent goalpost moving that is characteristic of these discussions.
Is there a retrovirus mutation or mutation that indicates the point when the genes started forming feathers and what else does those genes do in the host?
Is there a retrovirus mutation or mutation that indicates the point when the genes started forming feathers and what else does those genes do in the host?
Huh? What do retroviruses have to do with this?
There are a great many genes involved in feather formation, including many regulatory genes. It is rare for regulatory genes to be uniquely involved in any particular feature so it is likely that many of the genes involved are active elsewhere.
No, the scientists themselves disagree with each other:
quote:Some paleontologists think the extinction was caused by a catastrophe such as a meteorite or comet hitting the earth or a gigantic volcano erupting. Others believe that a more gradual process was responsible. Some theories are that competition between dinosaurs and mammals was the cause, or possibly climate changes. Scientists also disagree about the amount of time it took for the extinction to take place. Some think it happened in several days. Others say it took from hundreds of generations to over half a million years. http://animals.howstuffworks.com/.../dinosaur-extinction.htm
quote:The fossil record is something that Darwinists have had to explain away, because what it shows is the sudden appearance of organisms that exhibit no trace of step-by-step development from earlier forms. And it shows that once these organisms exist, they remain fundamentally unchanged, despite the passage of millions of years-and despite climatic and environmental changes that should have produced enormous Darwinian evolution if the theory were true. http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/citmag92.htm
The fossil record (or lack thereof) shows more gaps than 'fills' in information over time. There is not ONE documented 'transitional' fossil that is undisputed, many times by evolutionists themselves.
quote:The "teach the controversy" nonsense we get from creationists means nothing in terms of science.
Evolution is contraversial. If it were fact, we wouldn't be having this discussion, now would we.
quote:Have you ever studied the fossil record?
Oh, good. Then give me an undisputed transitional fossil. Give me any 'transitional' fossil. I'll find scientific evidence against it within a week, guaranteed.
Trust me, we are embarrassed. That evolution is still taught to our kids. Oh, and I read books. Though I do find the internet an easy access to information, I read books. Thats right, there are WHOLE BOOKS that argue ID. Imagine that.
quote:and other forms of radiometric dating that can be applied to rocks.
In case you missed grade one, there was a period after my point on radiocarbon dating. The following sentence starts, quite clearly, with "The dating methods that evolutionists rely upon", which is a plural, and refers to the parent-daughter dating methods, aside from carbon dating. Remember, periods start a new sentence, commas carry on a thought.
quote:That is what your religious belief teaches you.
A simple cell would require most, if not all, of the following mechanisms (since these are what we see today, even in 'simple' organisms):
1. complex protein molecules, 2. long-chain DNA RNA and molecules to store and transmit information, 3. six or eight different nucleotide molecules, 4. various lipid molecules, 5. sugar 6. twenty different amino acid molecules 7. chemical machinery to assemble proteins, RNA and DNA molecules from the building block molecules 8. a very accurate, information transmission and translation system 9. efficient error correcting systems to correct errors(mutations) that occur when DNA is copied during cell division 10. chemical machinery to capture energy from outside the cell 11. a cell membrane to hold the parts together and separate the inside from the outside 12. supplies of phosphorous, calcium, sodium, potassium and other inorganic elements, 13. chemical and physical conditions suitable for the accumulation and proper chemical combination and structural arrangements of all of these parts
It's not simple, no matter how you look at it.
quote:because there are two sides doesn't mean both sides are of equal merit.
So what makes you think that your side MUST be right, no matter what? As technology gets better with time, so does our understanding of past and present in biology and evolution. So if evidence mounted over time against specific points on the theory of evolution, you should reject those points, because you are not allowed to question a scientific theory? If thats the case, why are you even on here?
Scientific fact - an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final).
The very definition of a scientific fact argues against your belief that two sides should debate to accept one as factually true.
™ Version 4.0 Beta
