Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Extent of Mutational Capability
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 16 of 279 (793026)
10-18-2016 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Gregory Rogers
10-18-2016 8:10 AM


My first question relates to the extent and depth of which mutations are capable, that is, of genetic ‘elasticity’, as it were. Namely: Is there any known process or element in the genetic make-up of animal organisms, or else anything within biology, that would actively stop or act as a barrier to so-called 'macroevolution’. In other words, anything known to genetics that would prevent transformation or mutation from one animal category to another, i.e., any process that would preclude, for example, an ape-like form evolving into a human being, a dinosaur evolving into a bird, and so forth.
Well, yes and no.
Consider first of all the sorts of mutations we know can occur.: substitutions, insertions, deletions, repetitions, etc. It is trivially true that enough of those would get you from (for example) the genome of a fish to that of an anteater, just for the same reason that if you changed enough words you could turn War And Peace into A Tale Of Two Cities. If we just thought about what mutations can do, that would answer the question.
But in order for that to happen in the real world, each step has to be small, and each of the intermediate creatures has to be viable. Indeed, so as not to be removed by natural selection, the intermediates should be better, or at least no worse, than those forms that preceded them. So natural selection does impose limits on what mutation can achieve.
It would, I think, be hard to work out what those limits are just sitting in an armchair, but we don't have to be theoretical about this. If we look in the fossil record at (for example) the evolution of modern birds from dinosaurs, we can see a whole set of intermediate forms from small dinosaurs up to modern birds all of which look like plausible steps; we can't see any reason why natural selection should have imposed a barrier against anything that has happened, though doubtless it has prevented a whole lot of stuff that hasn't.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Gregory Rogers, posted 10-18-2016 8:10 AM Gregory Rogers has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 17 of 279 (793027)
10-18-2016 8:33 PM


Creation "science" again
Normally creationists won't admit that evolutionary change occurred through time. They'll allow microevolution but not macroevolution.
But a few silly creationists, such as Woodmorappe and Lubenow, think that Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis can best be understood as racial variants of modern man--all descended from Adam and Eve, and most likely arising after the separation of people groups after Babel! (Scientists see these as separate species.)
This means that these creationists not only endorse evolutionary change at the speciation level, but they see it occurring several hundreds of times faster than do paleontologists, and in reverse!
Or to put it in other terms, creation "science" is exactly the opposite of real science: nothing more than religious apologetics.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Diomedes, posted 10-19-2016 9:33 AM Coyote has replied
 Message 22 by dwise1, posted 10-19-2016 11:17 AM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 995
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


(3)
Message 18 of 279 (793038)
10-19-2016 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Coyote
10-18-2016 8:33 PM


Re: Creation "science" again
But a few silly creationists, such as Woodmorappe and Lubenow, think that Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis can best be understood as racial variants of modern man--all descended from Adam and Eve, and most likely arising after the separation of people groups after Babel!
Not so fast Coyote; I think the above could actually explain the standard Trump voter. :-)
Kidding aside, the skulls of these humanoids are far different from that of Homo Sapiens. The only one that comes close is Homo Neanderthalenis. And even there we can clearly see cranial features different from modern man:
On a side bar, I HATE the usage of terms like microevolution and macroevolution. To me, there is only 'evolution'. Believing in microevolution but not believing in macroevolution is the functional equivalent of saying that one believes in meters but doesn't believe in kilometers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Coyote, posted 10-18-2016 8:33 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by jar, posted 10-19-2016 9:39 AM Diomedes has not replied
 Message 20 by Coyote, posted 10-19-2016 9:53 AM Diomedes has not replied
 Message 21 by Taq, posted 10-19-2016 11:01 AM Diomedes has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 19 of 279 (793039)
10-19-2016 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Diomedes
10-19-2016 9:33 AM


Re: Creation "science" again
Believing in microevolution but not believing in macroevolution is the functional equivalent of saying that one believes in meters but doesn't believe in kilometers.
Damn I wish I'd said that.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Diomedes, posted 10-19-2016 9:33 AM Diomedes has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 20 of 279 (793040)
10-19-2016 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Diomedes
10-19-2016 9:33 AM


Re: Creation "science" again
Kidding aside, the skulls of these humanoids are far different from that of Homo Sapiens. The only one that comes close is Homo Neanderthalenis. And even there we can clearly see cranial features different from modern man:
Yes, definitely. That's why the creationists' tales about these critters being "racial variants" of modern man that developed after Babel are so silly!
(Two of my fields for the Ph.D. exams were fossil man and human osteology.)

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Diomedes, posted 10-19-2016 9:33 AM Diomedes has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 21 of 279 (793042)
10-19-2016 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Diomedes
10-19-2016 9:33 AM


Re: Creation "science" again
Diomedes writes:
On a side bar, I HATE the usage of terms like microevolution and macroevolution. To me, there is only 'evolution'.
What we have is two groups who focus on two different things. Creationists are obsessed with using labels, and judging everything from those labels. Scientists are more interested in explaining how the natural world works, and could care less about the need to neatly pigeon hole observations into one term over another.
For scientists, they are interested in why species differ from each other. Their explanation, backed by evidence, is speciation followed by divergence. Scientists have come to use the term "macroevolution" as a label for this process.
Creationists, on the other hand, believe that if they their use of words somehow forces nature to conform to their beliefs. If they can call one thing macroevolution, then they believe that the mere utterance of the word macroevolution can somehow falsify any other explanation.
What we have is two different worldviews of how the map relates to the territory. Creationists believe that a continent will reshape itself to match what they draw on a map. Scientists believe that they should draw a map so that it matches what the actual continent looks like. Reasonable people can use their own judgment to determine which is the most logical approach.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Diomedes, posted 10-19-2016 9:33 AM Diomedes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by dwise1, posted 10-19-2016 3:01 PM Taq has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 22 of 279 (793045)
10-19-2016 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Coyote
10-18-2016 8:33 PM


Re: Creation "science" again
What's even funnier is that while creationists claim that a very sharp and unmistakable line separates humans and apes, such that you can easily determine whether a hominid fossil is 100% human or 100% ape, they cannot agree with each other on individual fossils. Individual creationists cannot even decide, classifying the same fossil one way one time and then the other way later.
Refer to Joe Foley's page on talkorigins.org, Comparison of All Skulls.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Coyote, posted 10-18-2016 8:33 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 23 of 279 (793058)
10-19-2016 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Taq
10-19-2016 11:01 AM


Re: Creation "science" again
It's not so much that creationists are obsessed with using labels, but rather that science and creationism are two fundamentally different endeavors and it shows in everything that they do.
A couple decades ago, a creationist on a different forum made me realize this basic truth about creationism: the fundamental purpose for everything that they do is convincing people. They want to convince themselves and everybody else that their theology (YEC) is true and they do that by convincing everybody, especially themselves, that science (especially evolution and any evidence that the earth is old) is wrong. Later, I started writing a web page based on my analysis of the
Fundamental Differences Between Scientists and Creationists
-- it is still incomplete, but I have posted it without links to it for just such occasions as this. These fundamental differences affect everything that scientists and creationists do as well as the outcomes of both endeavors.
Basically, scientists want to discover more about the universe; to their questions they seek answers as well as further, more interesting questions. They base their research on the research of others (AKA, standing on the shoulders of giants), so they have a vested interest in verifying the research of others. If a scientist made a mistake in his research or even committed fraud, then that verification process will discover that and correct it, along with ruining that scientist's reputation in the case of fraud or shoddy work.
Basically, creationists are only interested in persuading others with the ultimate goal of converting them. Believing that they already have the answers, they have no actual questions. So they do not seek new knowledge, but rather they seek convincing-sounding arguments to use to convince others and themselves. When they base their work on the work of other creationists, they do not try to verify those other claims, but rather the true test is how convincing those other claims sound. Therefore, even when those claims are exposed as being false, they will continue to be used just because they sound so convincing. If a creationist does shoddy work (if?) or even if he commits outright fraud (again, if?), that will have absolutely no effect on his reputation just so long as his claims still sound convincing.
Scientists use language and terminology to try to describe what they observe and to communicate that information with each other as accurately as possible. They try their best to keep that communication truthful and accurate.
Creationists use language and terminology solely for the purpose of persuading others, even if that persuasion requires deception. Therefore, they will change the meanings of words to suit their goals. This leads to "semantic shifting", changing the meanings of the words in quote-mining scientific sources in order to change what that source actually said -- though they own lack of understanding of the science that they are misrepresenting would also be a factor. We can cynically observe that creationists' use of language is like what lawyers do in their arguments as they are trying to persuade the members of the jury. Yes, by redefining words they seek to redefine the world, but more importantly they seek to persuade others and themselves that falsehoods are the new truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Taq, posted 10-19-2016 11:01 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Taq, posted 10-19-2016 5:25 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 24 of 279 (793061)
10-19-2016 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Gregory Rogers
10-18-2016 8:10 AM


Greg, Please Don't Give Up Yet!
Greg, undoubtedly you feel overwhelmed by the replies. Please bear with us and stay in the discussion.
One point that has been raised is the problem of definitions. What we have observed through decades of experience is that creationists give scientific terminology new definitions upon which they then base their arguments. Obviously, when both sides use the same words but with different meanings, the only possible result is confusion and increased misunderstanding (both of which works to the creationist's advantage in his endeavors to persuade). Therefore, the first order of business should be to address the meanings of the terms we use.
As has also been pointed out, creationists use the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution" quite differently than scientists would, plus those terms are fairly obsolete in science. Furthermore, we have observed many instances of creationist misunderstanding of evolution and how it is thought to work -- commonly rather gross misunderstanding. The creationist redefinitions of the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution" appear to be grounded in such misunderstanding and reinforces their lack of comprehension. And then their questions about and challenges to evolution are all based on those misconceptions such that we find ourselves being challenged to prove true ideas which are completely false. A possible analogy might be for a flat-earther to challenge us to explain why the people in South Africa don't fall off the earth since they're walking around up-side-down.
Your question appears to be based on a misunderstanding of evolution and of what macroevolution means:
quote:
Is there any known process or element in the genetic make-up of animal organisms, or else anything within biology, that would actively stop or act as a barrier to so-called 'macroevolution’. In other words, anything known to genetics that would prevent transformation or mutation from one animal category to another, i.e., any process that would preclude, for example, an ape-like form evolving into a human being, a dinosaur evolving into a bird, and so forth.
"... from one animal category to another". What do you have in mind? Your examples don't help, because they are actual instances of an actual understanding of evolution. Are apes, hominids, and humans really different "animal categories"? They are all primates, so they are all in the same "animal category" in that respect. Similarly, dinosaurs and birds are in the same "animal category", in that the ancestors of birds were theropods, which were a kind of dinosaur. Are birds and lizards in the same "animal category"? Yes, in that they are both part of at least three larger groupings: chordates (vertebrates), amniotes (eggs), and diapsids (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diapsid). Did birds evolve from lizards (as I've heard at least one creationist claim)? No. Lizards are descendents of Lepidosauria, which is a different branch of diapsids than archosauria, the ancestors of dinosauria, then theropods, then birds.
Your reference to "... from one animal category to another" sounds like you think evolution says that it requires something like a modern lizard to evolve into a bird or a cat into a dog. Birds and lizards share common ancestors, but they are on quite separate and different branches and cannot jump from one branch to another. Dogs and cats share a much more recent common ancestor, but yet again a cat cannot jump branches to evolve into a dog. Not only does that grossly misrepresent what evolution says, but evolution actually says that that would be impossible.
Instead of asking us to prove a mistaken idea about evolution, it might be more fruitful to ask questions about what you think evolution does. Has part of your year-long investigation been to examine creationist claims to see whether they are true? If you had taken that approach by testing whether how creationists describe evolution is true, then you would have gotten further along in your endeavor to learn the truth.
That is why I recommended that YouTube series, How Creationism Taught Me Real Science. He starts with a creationist claim that sounds convincing and then examines it. Part of that process is looking at what science actually says, AKA real science.
Even if you don't watch any of those videos, that should still be your approach. Start with a creationist claim and first find out if it's accurate.
But do stick with your investigation. And stay onboard here.
Edited by Admin, : Fix YouTube link.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Gregory Rogers, posted 10-18-2016 8:10 AM Gregory Rogers has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Theodoric, posted 10-21-2016 11:12 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 25 of 279 (793064)
10-19-2016 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by dwise1
10-19-2016 3:01 PM


Re: Creation "science" again
dwise1 writes:
A couple decades ago, a creationist on a different forum made me realize this basic truth about creationism: the fundamental purpose for everything that they do is convincing people.
I have been coming to creo v. evo forums for over a decade now, which is probably half the time you have spent in such forums. I think I remember you saying you were on pre-HTML forums at one point, if memory serves. Still, I have seen more than my fair share of the species Onlinae creationistii, so if I may offer my two cents (which could be completely wrong). . .
I don't think they are trying to convince non-creationists. I think creationists are only trying to convince themselves that they are justified in their beliefs. This conclusion is based on quite a few things, but there is one main pillar: Creationists prefer echo chambers. They refuse to learn actual science, refuse to engage the actual scientific community, and refuse to scientifically test their ideas. We can also point to the pervasive creationist claim that they are being persecuted, yet another justification for believing that they are right.
I don't want to get too far into the metadebate, so let's bring this back around to created kinds. The superficial nature of "created kinds" can only survive in an echo chamber where no one asks for a scientific or objective definition for created kinds. As soon as created kinds are questioned they fold in on themselves like a wet paper bag. Arguing for created kinds can't convince anyone who even starts to scratch at the surface of the argument. The only purpose of created kinds is to have a sciencey sounding justification for believing in creationism.
We can look at a specific example which may better illustrate the problem creationists have. I have asked this one simple question in many different forums over many years. I have yet to find a creationist who can answer the following question (in a way that supports creationism):
"What features would a fossil need in order for YOU to accept it as a transitional fossil between humans and an ancestor shared with chimps?"
The only honest answer I have ever received from creationists on this question is that no matter what a fossil looks like, they would never accept it as being transitional. A few honest creationists will admit that their position is completely dogmatic, but for the most part creationists will ignore that question.
Deep down, they know what would convince people: evidence. They know they don't have it. What they do have the ability to do is create an echo chamber where they aren't reminded of that fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by dwise1, posted 10-19-2016 3:01 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 26 of 279 (793076)
10-20-2016 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Gregory Rogers
10-18-2016 8:10 AM


evolution two-step and convergence
Hi Gregory Rogers, and welcome to the fray.
I will add my 2-cents worth to this discussion and try to avoid repeating what others have said.
A year ago I set myself the task of plumbing the depths of the debate to ascertain, if I could, the truth about this issue (bearing in mind that my field is theology, not science).
To this end I would like to pose a series of questions, and would appreciate input from all sides.
Excellent way to start.
My first question relates to the extent and depth of which mutations are capable, that is, of genetic ‘elasticity’, as it were. Namely: Is there any known process or element in the genetic make-up of animal organisms, or else anything within biology, that would actively stop or act as a barrier to so-called 'macroevolution’. In other words, anything known to genetics that would prevent transformation or mutation from one animal category to another, i.e., any process that would preclude, for example, an ape-like form evolving into a human being, a dinosaur evolving into a bird, and so forth.
None known to date, and several instances of speciation have been observed, where a species branches into two species that no longer interbreed and share genetic material.
This kind of branching is what lead to humans and chimps in the last 10 million years or so, and what lead to birds and flightless dinosaurs (birds are flying dinosaurs) over a longer time period.
But I suspect that your question is not so much about common ancestry, as it is about changing one known type of animal into another known type of animal, and that is a different question.
It goes without saying that adaptation occurs on a lower level, eg, adaptation can result in different types of finches within the finch species, or else different breeds of dog within the dog species, etc. I believe all sides are agreed on this (so-called 'microevolution').
And that dogs evolved from wolves, yes agreed.
The crux of the debate, of course, is whether organisms can adapt significantly beyond this, from one animal to a different animal form altogether (ie, so-called 'macroevolution'). Thus I would be interested to know if there is any known genetic barrier that would actively prevent this larger step to a different animal form.
Part of the problem here is the definition of what is a "different animal form" and how do you determine when that has occurred.
To the biologist a "different animal form" occurs when a new species evolves, which is easy to determine when daughter populations no longer interbreed. Obviously there is no barrier to this happening, as it has been observed to actually in fact happen.
Creationists seem to think a much larger change is required, but I have had trouble getting a good definition of that change from them.
As a layperson, I am struck by the inventive adaptations within the dog family (eg Great Dane compared with Maltese, etc.) Looking at this level of inventiveness, it might seem that the inventive step from one to another animal type as such is not unreasonable.
Indeed, the variety in dog physiology is a testament to what mutations can evolve and survive when selection pressure is managed. The issue of selection pressure is important, as many breeds would not survive long in the wild, so what would appear in a fossil record would be a much smaller pool of variations. Dogs being artificial breeds selected by people protects them from natural selection purges.
Remember that evolution is a two-step feedback response system that is repeated in each generation:
Like walking on first one foot and then the next. Both steps are necessary to the evolutionary path.
However, the creationist counter-argument is, I believe, that DNA make-up is like a computer software programme, and that it cannot develop outside of its basic programming. Thus a cat could never evolve into a dog, etc.
This is what I was referring to previously about changing one known type of animal into another known type of animal. The answer is two-fold:
(1) evolution works in nested hierarchies: multiple speciation events, result in a pattern that looks like a branching bush or tree:
For "D" to evolve into an "I" it would have to un-evolve to an "A" and then repeat the evolution steps to "I" -- which is highly improbable and unlikely.
(2) theoretically it could occur with the right selection, as you can take the genetics of a cat and move them around and match the genetics of a dog (ie - you could build a dog DNA strand from a cat DNA strand by cutting and pasting -- which is what mutations do), but the problem is that selection pressure is not that precise a tool and evolution does not need to replicate an existing species DNA.
When selection pressure pushes for development of an animal similar to another known animal what you end up with is convergent evolution. For example, flying squirrels and sugar gliders:
Flying squirrels are placental mammals while Sugar gliders are marsupial mammals, their common ancestor is back at the division of mammalia into these two fundamentally different branches and while they have superficially similar appearances their internal physiologies are different and they cannot interbreed.
There are many examples of convergent evolution.
Of course, I have also heard the evolutionist argument that two different genes can merge and share their differences, resulting in a new genetic direction, and in this way new animal classes develop.
Species, not classes. This would be one kind of mutation. We even have evidence of chromosomes merging and creating new species: donkeys and horses differ in this way, as do humans and chimps.
I hope I have stated the science correctly, as per above.
So then, I would greatly appreciate all input on this point.
A good start, and hopefully the responses are helpful to you.
Enjoy
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
and you can type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
RAZD writes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.
For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0
Edited by RAZD, : ps added

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Gregory Rogers, posted 10-18-2016 8:10 AM Gregory Rogers has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 27 of 279 (793092)
10-20-2016 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Gregory Rogers
10-18-2016 8:10 AM


More Resources
Greg, resources such as the Wikipedia article, Mutation, should help answer your questions about the limits of genetics. It describes the various types of mutations that can happen. There seems to be a lot of confusion about mutations in the creationist literature, but what should always be remembered is that the only types of mutations that are of interest in evolution are changes that can be inherited. If the mutation cannot be inherited, then it is of no use to evolution and hence of no interest in these discussions. Inheritable mutations are always genetic (as opposed to environmental factors affecting embryo development, such as the effects of thalidomide) and always happen in the germ cells (eg, sperm, eggs) -- hence the distinction in the article between germline and somatic mutations.
Inheritable mutations of interest include base substitutions, insertions and deletions, insertion of entire sections, transposition, disabling of sections (eg, through copy errors), retro-viral insertions, etc. Finding the same copy errors and retro-viral insertions in the same places in different species can be used to trace how they are related to each other. We can also find where entire chromosomes have either split apart or fused together, thus changing the number of chromosomes in the descendent species. For example, gorillas and chimpanzees have 48 chromosomes while humans have 46. We find that human Chromosome 2 is the result of two ancestral chromosomes having fused end-to-end; that did not happen in the case of all other members of Hominidae, including gorillas and chimpanzees; from the article on mutation:
quote:
Changes in chromosome number may involve even larger mutations, where segments of the DNA within chromosomes break and then rearrange. For example, in the Homininae, two chromosomes fused to produce human chromosome 2; this fusion did not occur in the lineage of the other apes, and they retain these separate chromosomes. In evolution, the most important role of such chromosomal rearrangements may be to accelerate the divergence of a population into new species by making populations less likely to interbreed, thereby preserving genetic differences between these populations.
So there is a lot of leeway in how much genetic change there can be.
Another resource that could help you understand evolution would be the essay, Introduction to Evolutionary Biology at the archive site for the talkorigins newsgroup -- newsgroups were the original Internet forums established long before the Internet went public in the mid-1990s. The TalkOrigins Archive site, talkorigins.org, is an excellent source of information about the "creation/evolution controversy" and real science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Gregory Rogers, posted 10-18-2016 8:10 AM Gregory Rogers has not replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2243 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 28 of 279 (793101)
10-21-2016 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Gregory Rogers
10-18-2016 8:10 AM


Micro- and macroevolution are not so-called. The terms were coined by an evolutionist and I have found them in common use even at university level. However there is no precise universally agreed definition. Treat them as general rather than exact terms.
There is nothing that will actively stop mutations, although we also know that in some circumstances mutations are actively promoted in hot spots. There is however a passive barrier and that is the extreme rarity of beneficial mutations within the space of all possibilities. A change that requires several mutations before a benefit is produced are essentially beyond the reach of [neo-]Darwinian evolution.
Indeed there is considerable variation possible within the dog kind. Similarly from hybrids we can infer that all cats, from tabby to tiger, are all part of the cat kind. However we have never observed evolution from one kind into another.
Gene merging or gene duplication and conversion has never been observed. The closest they have come is identifying a family of similar genes that are assumed to have evolved from a common ancestor.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Gregory Rogers, posted 10-18-2016 8:10 AM Gregory Rogers has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Coyote, posted 10-21-2016 12:53 AM CRR has replied
 Message 30 by dwise1, posted 10-21-2016 12:59 AM CRR has replied
 Message 34 by PaulK, posted 10-21-2016 1:23 AM CRR has replied
 Message 36 by dwise1, posted 10-21-2016 1:50 AM CRR has not replied
 Message 51 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-21-2016 3:02 PM CRR has not replied
 Message 52 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-21-2016 3:04 PM CRR has not replied
 Message 70 by RAZD, posted 10-22-2016 12:54 PM CRR has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 29 of 279 (793102)
10-21-2016 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by CRR
10-21-2016 12:12 AM


However we have never observed evolution from one kind into another.
We have good evidence for the evolution of fully modern humans from earlier critters, both different species and different genera.
Direct observation is not needed, except by creationists arguing against evolution for religious reasons.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by CRR, posted 10-21-2016 12:12 AM CRR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by CRR, posted 10-21-2016 1:00 AM Coyote has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 30 of 279 (793103)
10-21-2016 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by CRR
10-21-2016 12:12 AM


Um, huh?
"Gene merging"? What is that? Could you please provide some examples?
Gene duplication is a different matter which we have seen happen many times. Such as in multiple alleles. The genes for hair color: BB for black, Bb for black, bb for blond. Yet there is also brown and several shades thereof! Because there are more than one gene pair for hair color, multiple alleles. Strictly binary black/white completely fails to explain the wide range of hair color, whereas the existence of multiple copies of those genes does explain it very well.
Similarly from hybrids we can infer that all cats, from tabby to tiger, are all part of the cat kind.
And yet there are no hybrids between the two major branches of cat, Pantherinae and Felinae, hence none "from tabby to tiger" as you have just so falsely stated. Your own "cat kind" has a built-in reproductive barrier across which no hybrid may pass.
However we have never observed evolution from one kind into another.
Just what the fuck is that supposed to mean? And whoever claimed that it was supposed to happen?
Do please be extremely specific in answering that question. Part of this test is to see whether you have any clue at all what evolution actually is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by CRR, posted 10-21-2016 12:12 AM CRR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by CRR, posted 10-21-2016 1:48 AM dwise1 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024