Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Extent of Mutational Capability
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(2)
Message 72 of 279 (793185)
10-23-2016 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Gregory Rogers
10-21-2016 11:31 AM


Check Archive History for Iron-Sharpens-Iron
Gregory Rogers writes:
I would be interested to see where the logical course of the thread is going - although, by now I certainly have my answer, at least from a Darwinist perspective. I am a little surprised there are not more creationist or ID-ers on the site - I was hoping for a more 'iron sharpens iron' experience, where posts could be tested from both sides.
Yeah, so would we
It used to be more-even. But, well, creationists are lowering and lowering in numbers everyday.
You are free to have your own opinion, of course. But creationists vs evolutionists really is similar to flat-earthers vs globe-earthers.
There will always be a fringe group that believe whatever they want to believe. But the facts of the matter is that evolution happens, and common ancestors exist. Details and minute specifics are still being evaluated (just as we haven't mapped out every square-inch of the planet, yet either). But the general idea of descent-with-modification-through-mutations-and-natural-selection is so widely tested and verified that it's rather silly to not accept it.
You don't have to take my word for it, though. Just keep doing exactly what you're doing (looking for honest answers) and you'll see it soon enough. Reality doesn't require any shadiness in it's explanations. Even children can identify a shuckster in a few moments after checking the facts.
So, basically, reality has already beaten down most of the 'honest creationists.' There simply isn't much of a group left to have an 'iron-sharpens-iron' discussion. Those have already taken place, the iron has already been sharpened, the result has already fallen into place. You are, unfortunately, simply late to the discussion.
In short, apart from rebuttals to existing posts, at this stage I would like to hear the ID/Creationist view on the extent and 'elasticity' of genetic mutations.
We would like to hear any ID/Creationist views as well. After all, it's what keeps forums like this going.
This Evo/Creo debate forum is very open with extremely balanced moderation. No posts get deleted. No users get deleted. Everything is always left up for everyone/anyone to read and review themselves. People do get suspended for breaking rules. And permanent bans do happen, but they are extremely rare and well documented to the public for their reasons.
Most Creo-ran sites (like evolutionfairytales.com) are not so open to discussion. They'll ban opinions they do not like almost immediately. They'll delete posts so they can act like an opposing view doesn't even exist. There's no discussion, or warnings, or honesty. It's all just smoke and mirrors to keep the act up.
If not, however, then perhaps this thread can suffer the 'coup de grace'; and I will duly go on to my next question in a new thread.
I wouldn't worry about it.
You're doing fine.
Feel free to talk or discuss anything you'd like. We're eager (as you can see) for discussion so we'll create our own if necessary.
The rules are more strict on staying-on-topic around here (keeps things organized as much as possible). Not so strict on new-topics-to-discuss. So if you have a new topic, feel free to start another thread. The promotion-system for new threads is basically a way to prevent spammers and bots. it's not meant to dissuade anyone from coming up with new ideas to talk about.
Feel free to look around, the archives are full of some of the iron-sharpens-iron discussions you were looking for. Try looking into the past on any forum that interests you (Biological Evolution, Is It Science?, Creation/Evolution Miscellany... would be good places to start for this sort of topic, I'd guess). Possibly around the early-2000's or so for when the population of the board was 'more even' between creo and evo. Peronally, I like the Faith and Belief forum. But that's just me.
Hope you find what you're looking for.
Have fun!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Gregory Rogers, posted 10-21-2016 11:31 AM Gregory Rogers has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 86 of 279 (793232)
10-24-2016 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Gregory Rogers
10-24-2016 9:44 AM


Super happy guessing fun time!
Ha ha... interesting questions.
Although the right answer is more along the lines of what Dr. Adequate has said... that we don't know.
I'm gonna have a crack at it anyway in the name of fun
Gregory Rogers writes:
Namely: let us hypothesize that there is another extinction event and
man, homo sapiens, under extreme environmental pressures, now begins to adapt or change (mutate).
Let us say, for example, there is a worldwide nuclear war. 90 percent of homo sapiens is wiped out, and the only option is to go miles underground, into deep tunnels and caverns.
To make it interesting, let us say that these caverns have virtually no light, are only three feet high, and that a massive landslide blocks re-entry to the surface.
Fair enough.
First point - Evolution is random with no goal or future-thought. It's quite possible that humans don't get a mutation that's helpful for them soon enough... and we just all die. Horrible, dark, lonely deaths. Such is the fate of 99% of all species that have ever evolved to exist on this planet. They just weren't able to keep up with the change in their environment fast enough and... poof... dead.
But, we're having fun... so let's say we have some sort of food storages and renewable water sources and such that we're able to keep on keeping on and we're protected from the radiation 'cause we're so deep and we get lucky with some useful adaptations and all the weak people die off in a morally-acceptable way such that the new adaptations can flourish in the population.
what direction would the new mutational tendencies take?
Again, evolution doesn't have a direction. But with natural selection (dark environment, damp soil, filtered air...) we can take some guesses on what sort of possible adaptations might get kept in the population. Again... given that we stop having sex with the peeps who do not have these adaptation 'cause they're holding everyone else back. In a morally-acceptable way, of course
Ultimately legs and arms would grow smaller, he would crawl like a large reptile; he would perhaps develop sonar technique like a bat for sensing direction, and the eyes would fall away almost completely.
You definitely can't use the word "ultimately." There's nothing definitive about evolution.
What if we developed claws and just dug bigger tunnels so that there was no more pressure to be smaller?
What if getting smaller made for smaller lungs and those people all died because they couldn't get enough air through the dirt from the surface?
What if we were to discover a way to create fire again and no longer had pressure to lose our eyes. And, in fact, had pressure to develop even greater eye-sight in low-light conditions?
Maybe what you say would happen.
Maybe not.
It all depends on exactly what the pressures are, if they're constant, if we (as humans who use tools and morality) don't circumvent them in some other way anyway... so many factors.
But, yes. If we're going to treat us surviving humans as "animals" and assume these selection pressures you've described actually exist and have an affect on us... then yes. Given enough time, we would adapt to the environment. Perhaps not in exactly the way you describe, but in some way.
Maybe we don't develop sonar at all. Maybe we develop some kind of temperature-heat-detection-radar that allows us to "see" (sense our environment) using that method. Maybe vision becomes unimportant and we survive just fine feeling our way around in the dark. Maybe we start growing longer and longer hairs/tendrils/whiskers from our body in order to physically sense things before we run into them.
The point is we don't get to choose.
We might not develop anything and die off.
We may develop something... but it's is likely to be something "good enough" instead of something "perfectly right" or "cool."
Further to this, how long might it take before homo sapiens evolves into a whole new organism — i.e., comparable to dinosaurs evolving into birds, which in that case involved scales becoming feathers, a mouth with teeth becoming a beak, wings developing, etc.
About 100 million years.
Not kidding.
All this time, we'll have to stay in the tunnels/underground with the same selection pressures working on us.
In perhaps a different hypothetical instance, how long might it take for human flesh to evolve into another substance — reptilian skin, let us say, or else for arms and hands to become claws, or what have you?
Skin to another substance? 10 million years.
Arms/hands to become claws or 'what-have-you'? 50+ million years.
Breaking it down, how many mutations would be required for such a transition? How long would each mutational change take, and how long would be required altogether for the transition?
Apologies, questions are even above my "for fun" pay-grade
Hope this sheds a little light. And remember... Dr. Adequate's answer is even more right: We don't know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Gregory Rogers, posted 10-24-2016 9:44 AM Gregory Rogers has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024