|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Question for KSC | |||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1907 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
Hi Karl,
I was wondering if you have been able to find any credible evidence that all structures within, say, a limb require specific mutations in order to alter their morphology, as you have implied numerous times in the past with your claims regarding 'multiple, serial mutations' or whatever it was. Remember? Like the time you posted a litany of structures found in a limb (veins, muscles, etc) and insisted that each of them requires their own mutations to change?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1907 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: And therein lies your error - which has been pointed out to you many times. Changes in developmental genes - and sometimes in genes not directly impacting development - can have profound phenotypic effects. My favorite is the point mutation in the gene encoding the receptor for FGF-3. This mutation produces achondroplasia (dwarfism). That single point mutations changes: bone length and proportion for ALL limb bones; alters the propoprtion of certain bones in reference to others; alters all relevant muscle size and shape; alters all blood vessel routing; alters all nervous tissue in the limbs; etc. What "new flipper material" are you referring to? What does a flipper have that a terrestial limb does not? As for the "mutations were needed to lose fur" , you are doing the old creationist cart-before-the-horse trick. Why do you assume that a whale needed to lose its fur? That it did (I guess...) is a bonus, but otters do quite well and they have more hair follicles per unit area than any other animal alive. Taking the extant and coming up with a list of things that HAD to have happened in order to get where that creature is today is illogical. Take computers. Look at all of the things that HAD to happen - in order - for us to be having this exchange right now. Gee - what are the odds? I guess the computer that I am using could not have been built by humans improving on earlier versions - clearly, it was created as is by some deity...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1907 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ksc:
[b]Considering evolution doesn't happen on the macro-level, there can't possibly be any proof. [b][/QUOTE] Proof of what? And thats quite a matter-of-fact statement there. Any supportive evidence? quote: Why is that? Who said that this was the case?[b] [QUOTE]
Now considering that there are evos who claim that it is a slow process lasting many of millions of years with scads of mutations I would venture to say that your theories dictate that multiple serial mutations are required to produce the evolutionary changes you evos claim happens when a leg is mutated into a flipper. [/b][/QUOTE] What are "multiple serial mutations"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1907 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: You simply do not get it, do you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1907 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
As an addendum - creationism needs mutations, too. How else are you going to explain getting all those cats from the original cat-kind?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1907 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: How would there have been variation in a 'gene pool' contributed to by only a single male and female? What were the genetic mechanisms that dictated which phenotype would be expressed? No, it is not true that I believe that the 'whale flipper' came about without mutations. However, you are still hung up on two key issues:1. The number of mutations You insist that some large number of mutations were required; that these mutations had to happen "over and over again" and "be directed to" the "DNA strand" that deals with flipper/limb morphology. Ignoring for now the obvious dearth of information you possess regardiong developmental genetics, I have provided a documented example of single point mutations producing relatively large scale phenotypic limb changes. You ignore this. 2. You are still using what I call the reverse cart-before-the-horse fallacy. You are looking at the extant 'whale', taking evolutionary hypotheses of its descent, and wondering how evolution could have accounted for the specific mutations that have occurred. You do not/cannot/will not see the fallacy in that. Allow me to demonstrate using an analogy. Karl Crawford exists. Yet his parents were two of several billion humans that could have mated. Each of them have genomes on the order of 3.2 billion nucloetides. What are the chances that their specific sequence of nucleotides existed? that their specific haploid genomes merged to form the zygote with a unique diploid genome that produced Karl? The mutations that produced Karl had to have happened over and ove again in the lineaqges leading to him, in the correct order. It is impossible for this to have happened. Therefore, Karl could not possibly be the result of the mating of his parents. Therefore, sexual reproduction does not occur. Silly? You bet. Then, I just employed the same sort of backwards logic that KSC and those like him do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1907 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: I thought about it before I wrote it, but it seems that you did not think about it at all before you responded. It is YOUR belief that some mythological 'cat-kind' present on the ark produced - in only a few thousand years - all of the extant felids. I seriously doubt that the 'variation' you see in your kids is even remotely like the variation that is ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED in the creation model. Unless, of course, you think that your great-great grandchildren will be members of a distinct species. I am not talking about different breeds of dogs, either. I am talking about getting ocelots, cerval cats, jaguarundis, lions, cheetahs, lynxes, cougars, house cats, etc. from some original 'kind' of cat. You say that the original cat kind had all of this variation 'built in'. And your evidence appears to be 'variations' in your children and differential expression of traits in dog litters.Noted. quote: Hinderance? What are you talking about? I asked for your proposed mechanisms that would, for example, repress all of the alleles responsible for the traits seen in, say, a ceval cat in this original kind. Your 'answer' is a total non-sequitur. quote: This is your standard comeback, and it is as nonsensical now as it was when you first used it years ago on CARM and elsewhere. What is your hang-up with echolocation? The fact of the matter is, mutations that affect limb morphology could very well affect other systems. Indeed, some genetic defects in fact are manifested in what appear to be completely unrelated ways. Am I making any sort of statemtn about the "DNA strand" that controls limb morphology and echo-location apparatus? No. But I do understand that development is not dictated by Karl Crawfords odd take on such things. quote: Whyt over and over again? And what does 'pinpointed' mean? If it such a no-brainer, surely you must have lots of evidence suportive of your position. It is a no-brainer that what you are proposing is in fact the opposite of what evolution indicates - you are proposing that some proto-whale (or some 'designer') wanted flippers and somehow directed specific mutations to occur. You are quite wrong. And THAT is a no brainer. quote: have you ever seen the bone structure of an achondroplastic limb? By the way, ALL of the structures in the limb are altered by that single point mutation. All of those structures that you cut and pasted from some anatomy book and claiming that each one required a 'pinpointed mutation' to change - all are changed by that one mutation. I thus refuted your repeated claim regarding some huge number of 'pinpointed mutations' being required to alter limb morphology.By the way - a flipper is just a limb with 'webbed' digits and altered proportions. But you knew that... Also by the way, there is quite a bit of information in the literature regarding the fin-limb transition: Chiu CH, Nonaka D, Xue L, Amemiya CT, Wagner GP.Evolution of Hoxa-11 in lineages phylogenetically positioned along the fin-limb transition. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2000 Nov;17(2):305-16. Kondo T, Herault Y, Zakany J, Duboule D.Genetic control of murine limb morphogenesis: relationships with human syndromes and evolutionary relevance. Mol Cell Endocrinol. 1998 May 25;140(1-2):3-8. Review. Sordino P, van der Hoeven F, Duboule D. Related ArticlesHox gene expression in teleost fins and the origin of vertebrate digits. Nature. 1995 Jun 22;375(6533):678-81. quote: It was an analogy, Karl. It was noit meant to be an explicit treatise on evolution. Of course, it amply demonstrates that what you say has little to do with evolution, as I emulated your logic. quote: Your point? quote: There you go again with your repeated (but wholly unsupported) assertions. You STILL don't get it. Changing developmental genes or genes that influence morphology can alter phenotype WITHOUT being 'directed at the DNA stand'. You still have not answered my earlier question - what do you mean by "DNA strand"? The only thing that is obvious is that you are relying on your shallow grasp of the science to prop up your belief. quote: That 'ignorance' follows directly from your logic re: repeated mutations in the 'DNA strand' being so unlikely that evolution fails. Just following your lead.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024